>>>> The fact that [DNSBLs] are widely used is sad, not a justification >>>> for standardization. >> True. The justification is not simply that they are widely used; it >> is that they are widely used, they are often done wrong, they are of >> tremendous value when done right, and of actively negative value >> when done wrong. > I agree that this might be a justification for standardizing some > sort of reputation protocol. But it's not at all clear the document > at hand describes [...] Perhaps. But this is not a place where the IETF gets to choose what will be used. DNSLs are in live use, have been for years, and will continue to be; the IETF can jump up and down all it wants, but that isn't going to change - the question is whether people will use DNSLs with an IETF standard or without one, not whether people will use DNSBLs or something else the IETF likes more. (In principle it's possible people might switch to something better. But I sure don't see any such "something better" even on the horizon, much less in even experimental use - and even if one appears, the adoption time is going to be measured in years. DNSLs will be here for a long time to come.) What the IETF _does_ have a chance to do here is to improve the quality of a critical piece of Internet infrastructure (email without DNSLs in today's net is either unusable or very heavily balkanized) by standardizing those aspects that are in shape to be standardized. The IETF says "rough consensus and running code". We have the running code. We even have something close to rough consensus in the field, in the form of the many DNSL providers and users; I hope the IETF can recognize that consensus and echo it enough to do what it can to help. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf