On May 16, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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).
rfc 1919 didn't result in the standardization of split horizon dns either so
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from that.
The criticicsm with the name of the draft doesn't seem to have anything to do
with criticism of documenting the practice.
By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary
definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion
The working group is what statistical research methodology calls a biased
sample...
Will we be revising dkim rfc 4871 to explictly define whitelist as dns name
based whitelist thereby replacing the existing two usages of the term (which
involve explicitly allowing delivery on the basis of orign), or was the term
appraise in 2009 but not now?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf