On May 2, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > That this is a completely unscalable answer to the problem that a tiny > percentage of computers on the Internet are misconfigured is something > the people pushing this "whitelisting" acknowledge. They're going to > jump off that bridge when they get to it. Right now, there's hardly > any IPv6 penetration, they say, so they can handle it. > > I think that this sort of "whitelisting" is, to be blunt, > short-sighted and foolish, but I think it is better to have a document > that at least explains what it is. If we had a WCP series, I'd > nominate this for inclusion. Perhaps the document could include the arguments for and against this practice? That way, someone who is new to IPv6 deployment theory can quickly get up to speed. I'm very much in favor of documents which say "don't do this -- but if you have to, here's how." But they have to include enough context for someone to understand why it'd be better if they didn't. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf