Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 5/16/2011 6:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Dave,

I take no position on whether it's in good taste to use the word "whitelist" in this particular instance or in general, but

On 2011-05-16, at 18:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:

1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is not documented in an RFC.

the term appears to have some precedent in the RFC series (see<http://www.google.com/search?q=whitelist+rfc+site:rfc-editor.org>, which includes such contexts as DNS, mail, SDP, Atom, v4 and v6 network operations and SIP), and

silly me, to have forgotten John's effort to document long-establishedn anti-spam list publication through the DNS, that the IESG would not allow to have made a standard.

An ironic example, given the current thread.


2. It is typically a split-DNS private/public mechanism.

No.

No doubt you can point to IETF documentation or other related, formal documentation of this?

(By the way, I'm not saying it's not done, merely that it seems not to have been documented in the fashion the current draft is attempting. Documentation history matters, for this sort of thread.)

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]