--On Saturday, 08 November, 2008 16:46 -0800 David Conrad
<drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought the role of the IETF was to define standards that
> facilitate interoperability implementations of protocols, not
> make value judgements about operational decisions made by
> folks who use those protocols.
>
> Is the goal here to force the folks who are interested in
> standardizing DNSBLs to do so in another venue?
David,
I would be much more sympathetic to the notion that this was
just about standardizing neutral formats to facilitate
interoperability among those who had decided to use these lists
if the Security Considerations section addressed a broader range
of the issues that have been raised in this thread. It does
not, and that leads one to wonder whether that argument from
some of the participants is a little bit disingenuous.
And, in theory, the IETF still has a system of recommendation
levels for standards-track documents on the books that is
orthogonal to maturity levels and that includes such categories
as "recommended", "not recommended", and something like
"mandatory". While we haven't used those categories regularly
for years, the default remains, AFAIK, "recommended" ... that
that doesn't mean a neutral "we recommend that you use this data
format if you decide to do that thing".
In addition, although we were well into the thread before it
came up, if the ASRG is planning to ask for publication of a
"companion document" that specifies how to use this stuff, as a
BCP no less, the two documents should be treated in the same way
we would normally treat WG or conventional individual submission
documents that were that closely related and put into Last Call
together.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf