[Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists draft updated.

[David Nicol]

s/in a Graceful fashion/Gracefully/
s/author's/authors'/
s/are known to be in operation/operate [ref]/
s/by those people //
s/While listing criteria can sometimes be quite controversial,/Listing
criteria can sometimes be quite controversial, therefore/
s/as long as they're clear to their users what they are./as long as
those criteria are clearly and accurately communicated./
s/e.g./for example/
s/only the assessment/only for assessment/
s/an un-intended way/unintended ways/
s/third party's information guide/third party's information to guide/
s/ultimately with you, the system administrator/ultimately with you,
the postmaster/
s/, perhaps inevitably,//
s/  In this context it has to be remembered that n/  N/
s/Yet, by/By/
s/If the DNSBL operator is too explicit in published policy, an abuser
may be able to "game" it/Abusers may be able to "game" published
policy that is too explicit/
s/conditions for listing still exists/conditions triggering listing still exist/
s/blowing up into/from becoming/
s/have plans/include plans/
s/positive listing for 127.0.0.1 SHOULD be considered/positive listing
for 127.0.0.1 SHOULD be interpretable as/
s/finally shutdown the DNSBL/finally shut down the DNSBL/

the rescan period SHOULD increase using exponential backoff


clearly dividing shoulds for providers and shoulds for users into
their own section would be good IMO