--On Thursday, 13 November, 2008 18:01 +0000 Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> If there were a BCP on the table that would permit us to talk >> about DNSRBLs that conform and those that don't, rather than >> about subjective opinions of "behaving badly", we would, IMO, >> be having a rather different discussion. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blackl > ists-04.txt Sorry, Tony, I'm aware of the existence of that draft. Procedurally, it takes us back to exactly the problem I'm trying to identify, quite independent of the substance of the DNSBL debate. That document is under consideration in an RG. As far as I know, there has been no assertion of RG consensus (whatever that might mean). If I recall, one of the authors even indicated that it needed to be revised further. It is not a WG product that was authorized in the WG's charter. I don't believe that anyone has asked that it be standardized (or published as a BCP). Certainly no IETF Last Call has been issued. And that is exactly the point I was making -- with a WG, we have the opportunity, at charter time, to discuss the complex of documents that are needed and even to make decisions about what should be considered first. ADs get to look at the entire set of proposed WG documents and make decisions (subject to discussion and appeal if needed) about what documents should be considered by the IETF together or in a specific order. Here we are being asked to standardize a set of data formats without the BCP and framework documents that make that consideration meaningful and, as others have pointed out, without documentation of consequences, risks, and relationships that belongs somewhere in a set of documents. I don't know if those appear in adequate form elsewhere in the set, but I do know that they are not in the document in front of the IETF and that some of us believe that, without them, the document should not be approved on the standards track. And all of that would be true even if more of us were huge fans of RBLs. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf