On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Livingood, Jason <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> While you have not contributed text per se (by sending it directly), I
> try to be a good listener and items you and other Googlers have raised have
> been included in the document around motivations
On 5/31/11 12:00 PM, "Tony Finch" mailto:d...@dotat.at>> wrote:
Speaking of confusing, the first sentence of the abstract and introduction
in the current revision of the draft is an abomination that should be
taken out and shot.
[JL] Great feedback – I just did it. Here's the updated Abstract (ca
Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Whitelisting, on the other hand, is the term that Google introduced for
> this kind of "thing" and people seem to clearly understand what this
> is about. "You are on my white list of people that I like talking to!".
I think it's OK to refer to it as "whitelisting". I thi
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list.
>
I don't want to contribute to the document because - in my opinion, and
speaking only for myself - I don't think it can be made into a balanced
assessment of the issu
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> I have no idea what a "v6 DNS ACL" should be, except maybe an ACL that
> protects which IPv6 clients are allowed to talk to a DNS server.
>
ACL is the wrong term. Saying it's an ACL makes it easy to make the argument
that whoever is implemen
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 08:34:21AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> " ACL" or "V6 DNS ACL" or "V6 resolver ACL" now seem to me quite good
> labels. They provide useful, direct and precise meaning, while avoiding the
> various referential and denotational problems of a loaded term like white
On 5/31/11 2:48 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti"
mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli
mailto:joe...@bogus.com>> wrote:
But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list.
I don't want to contribute to the document
While you have not contrib
On May 30, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> But you've contributed to this document, so have others from that list.
>
> I don't want to contribute to the document because - in my opinion, and
> speaking only for myself - I don'
On May 30, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> I have no idea what a "v6 DNS ACL" should be, except maybe an ACL that
> protects which IPv6 clients are allowed to talk to a DNS server.
>
> ACL is the wrong term. Saying it's an ACL m
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 ter
Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/17/2011 8:27 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, mailto:sth...@nethelp.no>>
wrote:
>
> > > 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
On 5/17/2011 8:27 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, mailto:sth...@nethelp.no>>
wrote:
>
> > > 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 bas
> > 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 d
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
Scott Schmit wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't have this problem. I've always understood whitelists
> and blacklists to be generic problem-solving tools that happen to be
> applied to the spam filtering problem. I'm confident that people who
> didn't before will quickly adjust to the terms being used
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:45:54AM +0200, Fred Baker wrote:
> Personally, I think this discussion is getting a little strange. It
> reminds me of a rabbi's discussion of what constitutes work and
> therefore may not be done on the sabbath.
I agree. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that
On May 17, 2011, at 12:49 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
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 statistic
On 5/16/2011 8:34 PM, SM wrote:
Maybe this could be called "DNS Seal Team 6".
Well, apparently that would be /actual/ trademark infringement, with Disney.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ie
At 15:44 16-05-2011, 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
On 5/16/2011 6:44 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
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 revisin
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.
On 2011-05-16, at 18:33, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> 2. It is typically a split-DNS private/public mechanism.
>>
>> No.
>
> No doubt you can point to IETF documentation or other related, formal
> documentation of this?
No, and I'm not sure why that's relevant. There's no shortage of examples of
On 5/16/2011 6:28 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Dave,
I take no position on whether it's in good taste to use the word "whitelist" in
this particular instance or in general, but
On 2011-05-16, at 18:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is not documented i
Hi Dave,
I take no position on whether it's in good taste to use the word "whitelist" in
this particular instance or in general, but
On 2011-05-16, at 18:21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 1. It is not previously standardized and I believe it is not documented in an
> RFC.
the term appears to have som
On 5/16/2011 6:08 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Changing times often call for changed vocabulary.
which is fine, the rational stated is false to fact.
But you do not seem to be refuting the point /I/ am making, which that the fact
that the ter
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 w
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
On May 11, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> Although this is a minor point, it's also easy to address:
>
> On 5/4/2011 4:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> ...
>> Meanwhile, the discussion about whether or not to call this
>> "whitelisting" is pointless. The term is already well-estab
On May 2, 2011, at 08:28 , Erik Kline wrote:
>
> I'm having a hard time thinking of adequate alternatives terms (but this
> purely a personal failing, I'm sure). Recommendations for other words?
The word "enclave" springs to mind. We are talking about the use of "DNS
enclaves" for serving AAA
On 3 May 2011 04:48, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> In any of the various IPv6 fora (including v6ops at the IETF) "DNS
> Whitelisting" is how this practice is typically labeled. When writing the
> draft I felt this could be confusing outside of IPv6 circles and so
> lengthened it to "IPv6 DNS Whit
Livingood, Jason
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:55 AM
To: John Leslie; Richard L. Barnes; Dave CROCKER
Cc: v6...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Review of:
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications-03
As I read it, this says that certain DNS servers will be configured
to
I'm having a hard time thinking of adequate alternatives terms (but
this purely a personal failing, I'm sure). Recommendations for other
words?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
32 matches
Mail list logo
