Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-06-01 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
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 and

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Joel Jaeggli
On May 30, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Joel Jaeggli
On May 30, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli 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 because - in my opinion, and speaking only for

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Livingood, Jason
On 5/31/11 2:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.commailto: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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Gert Doering
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 whitelist. I

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Lorenzo Colitti
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Joel Jaeggli 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 because - in my opinion, and speaking only for myself - I don't think it can be made into a balanced

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Tony Finch
Gert Doering g...@space.net 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.

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 *(formal for apps area)*

2011-05-31 Thread Livingood, Jason
On 5/31/11 12:00 PM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.atmailto: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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Scott Schmit
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Tony Finch
Scott Schmit i.g...@comcast.net 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Cameron Byrne
On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, 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 basis of the orgin of a query ala split horizon is not exactly new

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread sthaug
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,

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Joe Touch
On 5/17/2011 8:27 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, sth...@nethelp.no 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Hector Santos
Joe Touch wrote: On 5/17/2011 8:27 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On May 16, 2011 11:41 PM, sth...@nethelp.no 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-17 Thread Hector Santos
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Joel Jaeggli
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-established.

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Dave CROCKER
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Joel Jaeggli
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Dave CROCKER
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Joe Abley
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 some

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Dave CROCKER
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 in

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Joe Abley
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 addresses

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Joel Jaeggli
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.

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Dave CROCKER
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread SM
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Dave CROCKER
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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 Thread Fred Baker
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 statistical research

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-03 Thread Erik Kline
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

RE: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-03 Thread Tina Tsou
Of 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-03 Thread John Mann (ITS)
On 3 May 2011 04:48, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.comwrote: 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

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-03 Thread james woodyatt
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