On 5/16/2011 6:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Changing times often call for changed vocabulary.
which is fine, the rational stated is false to fact.
But you do not seem to be refuting the point /I/ am making, which that the fact
that the term has some established practice now does not automatically mean than
it /must/ be retained.
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.
This has been explored before. Do a google on DNS whitelist. Look for dominant
use, not stray exceptions.
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.
1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is not documented in an
RFC.
2. It is typically a split-DNS private/public mechanism.
The draft is quite clear about exploring this topic in order to pursue common
behaviors. That's standardization (eventually).
By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary
definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion
Not this dictionary:
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whitelist>
nor this one:
<http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/whitelist.html>
and neither of the main-stream examples cited here:
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/white+list>
leading up to the wglc.
The working group is what statistical research methodology calls a biased
sample...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf