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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
