On May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 5/16/2011 5:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>> For the terms in this doc, alternatives that do not require explanation >>> (and aren't potentially racially charged) include "permit list" and "deny >>> list". >> >> the blacklist originates with charles the 2nd. it has no racial connotations >> in that context. >> >> see also the death of cromwell and the resortation. > > > 1. Changing times often call for changed vocabulary.
which is fine, the rational stated is false to fact. > 2. The "established" label is semantically wrong, since the construct of > white/black for lists refers to priviledge or goodness. Which is "good", v6 > or v4? The answer is completely arbitrary and, therefore, renders the term > neither intuitive not really appropriate. > 3. When the IETF processes work with a history, it often changes labels. > > 4. And let's not forget the name conflict with anti-spam DNS-based > whitelists. (It's probably close enough to qualify as trademark infringement > if this were a trademark case) Really? I can find numerous examples of whitelisting that don't involve spam. > How much longer does this list need to be to justify choosing better labels > for this v6 dual-stack transition hack? returning different sets of resource records on the basis of the orgin of a query ala split horizon is not exactly new ground. By my observation, what is being done, satisfactorily meets the dictionary definition of a whitelist. the term was uncontroversial in the dicussion leading up to the wglc. If it's really inapropiate that's cool but I'm frankly not convinced. > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
