Chris Lewis wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > >> Note that anti-spam blacklists are distributed by more mechanisms than >> just the DNS. Questions of listing policy apply whatever protocol is >> used, so they shouldn't be addressed in a document that just describes >> a DNS-based query protocol. > > I have a similar objection the proposal of a WG for "reputation lists". > > The problem it seems intended to solve is far broader than reputation > lists, and is completely orthogonal to a reputation delivery protocol > standard. [...]
Assuming IESG is interested in chartering some WG in this space, it's reasonable to have a discussion about the appropriate scope of said WG. But I don't buy the "content is independent of the container" arguments. In my experience, containers (or protocols, or data representations) nearly always have implied semantics. Even if this isn't intentional, or even if the intention is for them to be free of semantics, they tend to have them in practice, and the semantics tend to be encouraged or enforced by the kinds of tools that were built to deal with those containers. There is also a strong tendency to tailor the data model to make it fit the container. So chances are good that (for example) a data model designed for use with XML would not fit handily into another representation such as email-style headers or DNS resource records. This is part of why I don't assume that DNS is a good way to transmit reputation information. I feel confident that a less constrained protocol would facilitate a better data model. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
