On May 17, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
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?
how is non-normative discussion text in rfc 4871 relevant?
Perhaps that also means that all RFC references to cron are required to
define the term?
Speaking as and for myself...
I speak English. As a result, I understand that the word "run" has multiple
meanings. If the speaker is looking at a stocking, I understand him or her to
be talking about a "run" in a stocking; if we are at a baseball game, I
automatically understand that "runs" compare with "hits" and "errors". In fact
most words have multiple meanings and have to be understood in context.
In this case, the draft is talking about a particular variety of DNS service.
One might call is "DNS Whitelisting" when the context isn't clear, but I think
in this case the context is clearly not DKIM. The common thread it the phrase
is that a whitelist identifies those deemed acceptable, as compared to a
blacklist identifying those deemed unacceptable within the context.
Personally, I think this discussion is getting a little strange. It reminds me
of a rabbi's discussion of what constitutes work and therefore may not be done
on the sabbath.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf