heasley wrote: > Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 01:18:20PM +0100, Nick Hilliard: >> The second adds a note to say that both the receiving and the sending >> party should explicitly filter out more-specifics unless they're tagged >> with BLACKHOLE. I would be in favour of seeing this noted in the >> security considerations section, as it is a security related problem. > > though I agree with you, that seems unrelated to blackholing, and thus out > of scope. an informational rfc about best standard practices toward being > a positive functioning member of the DFZ would be a better place for that; > which may already exist unbeknownst to me.
the intention of this is to explicitly document good practice which some operators are going to overlook, but I hear what you're saying. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
