[Asrg] Round 2 of the DNSBL BCP

[Chris Lewis]

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Chris Lewis wrote:
>  
>>> It may or may not be their right to express that opinion --
>>> I think it is, but I'm not an attorney even in *this*
>>> country.  I think it's overbroad to state a global legal
>>> opinion.
>  
>> Perhaps it should be toned down, but I think it still 
>> needs to be said somehow.  You don't have to be a lawyer
>> to express an opinion about the law.
> 
> The problem is not the opinion expressed in the list.  The
> problem is to write "their absolute right" in a BCP when
> you are no lawyer.  Some bad ideas published as list could
> be illegal where I live.

I'll fix the other place where it says legal/law.

>> The document uses "DNSBL" thruout to handle DNS-query-based
>> lists, and explicitly calls out both domains/IPs, and is
>> inclusive of SURBLs too. I think adding RHSBL/SURBL/URIBL
>> etc will only make the document way more opaque than it
>> needs to be and is unnecessary.
> 
> Using 127.0.0.2 as always listed test entry is unfortunately
> no common practice in RHSBLs I know.  It's also not obvious
> that this should be no technical problem.  SURBL is no pure
> RHSBL, it covers also IPs.  RFCI is a pure RHSBL today, it
> doesn't list 127.0.0.2.  If you think that's not the "b" in
> "best" you have to say that RHSBLs have no technical reason
> to use say example.tld instead of 127.0.0.2.  I didn't check
> if the draft already does this. 

Is there a testing convention for RHSBLs currently in use?  RHSBLs 
_could_ still use the 127.0.0.2 convention just like DNSBLs do, there's 
really nothing preventing it.  Other than deciding whether the octets 
should be reversed or not.