Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)

[Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>]

On 11/10/08 10:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
> > development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
> > that can be implemented in email products without known patent
> > encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. Email
> > is simply too important to allow otherwise.
> >      
>
> Not to belabor the totally painfully obvious, but DNSBLs are a
> protocol for communicating email sender reputation that are
> implemented in open source software without patent encumbrances and
> have been for a deacade.
>
> What would be the point of yet another WG to reinvent this wheel?
>    

I tend to agree.  Here are a few questions for the IESG when considering 
this matter:

1.  Would declining to publish as a standard harm or hurt the 
community?  Would refusing to publish as a standard stop implementations 
or merely create potential interoperability issues that could lead to 
more legitimate messages being dropped?

2.  Does the IESG perceive that the creation of a working group would 
substantially change the content of the document in question?  Put 
another way, what would a working group consider doing differently?

3.  Would publishing on some other track serve a legitimate purpose, 
other than to duck the above two issues?

If the answer to the last question is "no", then I ask that the IESG 
properly address the first two.

Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf