ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 17:09:25

On May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:



On 5/16/2011 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
For the terms in this doc, alternatives that do not require explanation
(and aren't potentially racially charged) include "permit list" and "deny
list".

the blacklist originates with charles the 2nd. it has no racial connotations
in that context.

see also the death of cromwell and the resortation.


1. Changing times often call for changed vocabulary.

which is fine, the rational stated is false to fact.

2. The "established" label is semantically wrong, since the construct of 
white/black for lists refers to priviledge or goodness.  Which is "good", v6 
or v4?  The answer is completely arbitrary and, therefore, renders the term 
neither intuitive not really appropriate.

3. When the IETF processes work with a history, it often changes labels.

4. And let's not forget the name conflict with anti-spam DNS-based 
whitelists. (It's probably close enough to qualify as trademark infringement 
if this were a trademark case)

Really? I can find numerous examples of whitelisting that don't involve spam. 

How much longer does this list need to be to justify choosing better labels 
for this v6 dual-stack transition hack?

returning different sets of resource records on the basis of the orgin of a 
query ala split horizon is not exactly new ground.

By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily 
meets the dictionary definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in 
the dicussion leading up to the wglc. If it's really inapropiate that's cool 
but I'm frankly not convinced.


d/

-- 

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>