Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:18:01AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The difficulty is that the current line of argument is that because some
DNSBLs are operated badly, DNSBLs are bad.
I think that's not quite fair. My impression is that there is more
than one line of argument.
Andrew,
Yeah, I should have qualified what I meant: I focused on the anecdotal and ad
hominem (ie, personal) line of argument because of its core philosophical and
methodological weaknesses and lack of technical basis.
is being taken seriously and I don't understand why.
Here are some different ones that I have
observed in this discussion, some of which seem never to be getting
answers.
I'm planning to carefully review all the postings and try to summarize them with
considerably more diligence than my previous posting. To that end, it could
help quite a bit to see what specific questions you see as needing answering by
the proponents of the specification.
I should note that I've posted a number of follow-up questions to critics and
they have mostly been ignored or dismissed.
In stark contrast, the recent posting by John Klensin and then yours and Olaf's
are clearly based on core principles. That makes it possible to have
constructive debates about facts, architecture and operations.
1. Some DNSBLs are bad, therefore all DNSBLs are bad.
2. DNSBLs are in themselves bad, because there is no way to guarantee
that they won't contain false positives;
3. DNSBLs are not in themselves bad, but the implementation of them
as described in the current draft (which does describe the current
state of the art in DNSBLs) _is_ bad.
Good summary of critics' concerns, I think. Thanks.
If anyone believes there are other perspectives that should be listed, please
say so.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf