[Asrg] Round one modifications to DNSBL BCP draft.

[Chris Lewis]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> Most black-hole/block lists are based upon the IP address where the  
> octets are in reverse order.  The network provider can be noted by who  
> advertised the address space.
> 
> See:
> http://www.team-cymru.org

> This technique depends upon ASNs observed in BGP announcements.  This  
> information is often processed with a program like zebra, for example.

Or home grown stuff using routeviews.

The mechanics of doing this are well understood, however:

> Determining the network provider helps establish their reputation,  
> which should represent a significant factor in whether their  
> advertised space can be trusted.

Very few existing (at least public) DNSBLs pay any attention whatsoever 
to this.  Those that do usually do little more than ad-hoc aggregate 
statistical reports, eg http://cbl.abuseat.org/country.html and 
http://cbl.abuseat.org/domain.html, or Spamhaus's country/provider top 
100 listings, or Cymru's or helping guide the manual escalation of 
manual listings...

Hence, it misses the "C" ("current") required for a BCP.

It may be the perfect reputational DNSBL design, but it's still not a 
_current_ one, and is hence not eligible for a BCP.

Secondly, it's DNSBL listing policy, not operational practise.  Thus, it 
is out of scope for the document at hand _even_ if such DNSBLs existed 
today.

So while this discussion might lead to ideas for new DNSBLs (I've gotten 
several ideas already - I already do most of the hard computations) with 
more advanced listing criteria, it's totally irrelevant to a DNSBL 
operational BCP.

As a discussion for future work in DNSBL/reputational systems it's a 
reasonable topic for ASRG.  But, it has _nothing_ to do with the BCP - 
this subthread diverged from relevance some time ago.