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

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 16, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

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

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

The draft is quite clear about exploring this topic in order to pursue common behaviors.  That's standardization (eventually).

rfc 1919 didn't result in the standardization of split horizon dns either so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from that.

The criticicsm with the name of the draft  doesn't seem to have anything to do with criticism of documenting the practice.

By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary

definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion

The working group is what statistical research methodology calls a biased sample...

Will we be revising dkim rfc 4871 to explictly define whitelist as dns name based whitelist thereby replacing the existing two usages of the term (which involve explicitly allowing delivery on the basis of orign), or was the term appraise in 2009 but not now?

d/


--

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf