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

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

 



Dave CROCKER wrote:


On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

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?

how is non-normative discussion text in rfc 4871 relevant?

Perhaps that also means that all RFC references to cron are required to define the term?

The beauty of RFCs is its merger of functional and technical writing for a multi-discipline audience environment.

Ideally, the writer should find a term that is *universally" understood. On the other hand, at times "Being Specific Is Terrific." In this case with DKIM, the "cron" usage in MLM I-D (IMO) was inconsistently applied; may be helpful for one audience group, but not others.

For "DNS Whitelisting," IMV, it is more universal, although it might be come with different perspectives and motivations. For example, the irony (as I read the documents) is that it is based on faults occurring of the network - using expected failure as a form to filtering out the incompatibilities - the "bad". In that vain, we have a form of "whitelisting."

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


_______________________________________________
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]