Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/17/2011 8:27 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, <sthaug(_at_)nethelp(_dot_)no
<mailto:sthaug(_at_)nethelp(_dot_)no>>
wrote:
>
> > > 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.
I'm OK if there's consensus not to change it, but the wider scope of
IETF LC and cross-area review is exactly to catch things that the WG
didn't.
+1
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf