[rfc-i] Fwd: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>

Dave CROCKER dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Sep 27 09:30:56 PDT 2011


This note raises an interesting cross-stream issue.  The IESG is being entirely 
polite and formally appropriate, IMO, but I think the issue they raise is 

While streams do need reasonable independence from each other -- I'm relatively 
less worried about "end run" efforts to bypass the standards process than most 
folks seem to be -- I do think that RFCs from non-IETF tracks need to be 
particularly careful to avoid language and labels that create confusion with our 
actual standards process.

As such, I think that non-IETF streams MUST NOT:

    1.  Claim to follow RFC 2026 (The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3)

    2.  Claim to conform to  RFC 2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
Requirement Levels)

    3.  Have a title that asserts that the document is a standard or BCP



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:45:02 -0700
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
To: irsg at irtf.org
CC: johnl at iecc.com, iana at iana.org, The IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, ietf-announce at ietf.org

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Overview of Email DNSBL
Best Practise' <draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-10.txt> as an
Informational RFC.

The IESG wants to make the IRSG aware of its concern that there is
a potential for confusion between the IETF "Best Current Practice" (BCP)
series and the use of the term "Best Practise" in the title and the abstract
as well as the use of the acronym "BCP" in the page header of each
page and in sections 1.2 and 3.6. Anything that the IRSG can do to
avoid this confusion would be appreciated.

The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in
the datatracker
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists/) related
to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation
into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

    The rise of spam and other anti-social behavior on the Internet has
    led to the creation of shared DNS-based lists ("DNSBLs") of IP
    addresses or domain names intended to help guide email filtering.
    This memo summarizes guidelines of accepted best practise for the
    management of public DNSBLs by their operators as well as for the
    proper use of such lists by mail server administrators (DNSBL users),
    and it provides useful background for both parties.  It is not
    intended to advise on the utility or efficacy of particular DNSBLs or
    the DNSBL concept in general, nor to assist end users with questions
    about spam.

Working Group Summary

    This document is a product of the Anti-Spam Research Group and
    represents the consensus of that group.

Document Quality

    This document is a research publication of the IRTF.


    Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com> is the responsible Area Director.


    The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
    in the MARF WG and the as-yet-unchartered REPUTE BOF, but this relationship
    does not prevent publishing.
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce at ietf.org


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list