[Asrg] New draft draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-01.txt

[Andrew Kirch]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>   
>>> This draft can not be considered a Best Current Practice for  
>>> operating black-hole lists
>>>       
>> Black hole is a very specific technical term in this context,  
>> relating  to packet routing. Is that what you mean?
>>     
>
>  From a legal perspective "black list" is a technical term that does  
> not apply to black-hole lists or block-lists.  The term "black list"  
> in this draft may unnecessarily obligate a black-hole or block-list  
> operator to clarify the difference in possible litigation.  The  
> RBL(tM) (real-time black-hole list) information ultimately pertains to  
> the reputation of the network provider.  Blocking or black-holing  
> should be contained within the provider's advertised space.  Properly  
> establishing this containment and identifying the provider is critical  
> for any block/black-hole list operator.  This aspect of block/black- 
> hole listing is currently missing from the draft.
>
> The block/black-hole listing information is currently distributed in  
> several forms, such as BGP, DNS, or data transfers of various types.   
> When published using BGP, this information can safely can be called  
> black-hole listing in the classic sense.  When published using DNS,  
> most MTAs return an error code, where this might be better described  
> as block-listing, or perhaps even conduct-listing, because blocking  
> may not be the result of the listing.  A term that should not be used,  
> to avoid confusion with legal definitions, would be black-listing.
>
> -Doug
Speaking from a strictly American legal point of view, idiots are going
to sue regardless of what you call it, and changing the name doesn't
waive aa DNSBL/black hole list/black list's protection under 47USC230.  
I do agree that we should be consistent in terminology and would
recommend the use of DNSBL throughout.

Andrew