[Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07

[Chris Lewis]

John Levine wrote:
>> Because of the importance of the Internet in general, I would
>> suggest that RFCs include a legal considerations section for aiding
>> lawmakers, where relevant. Am I out of line?
> 
> I really don't think it's a good idea for us technonerds to be giving
> legal advice.  Just think of the technical advice that lawyers would
> give us, and then ask yourself why ours would be any better.

I think he's suggesting we give law_makers_ advice.  Which is likely
even more dangerous.

> Moreover, the IETF has a long history of endless arguments about legal
> issues, most notably intellectual property, which rarely comes to
> a conclusion.  So let's not.

We had a "bit" of legal maunderings in the DNSBL BCP (which I think is
the "not yet seen" document you were referring to), and we took it all
out for those reasons.

In the BCP
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-04), we say:

>    These DNSBLs vary widely in purpose for which the list was intended,
>    the method the list uses to achieve the purpose, the integrity of
>    those overseeing the method, and the stability of the technology used
>    to create and distribute the data.  Listing criteria can sometimes be
>    quite controversial, therefore this document deliberately does not
>    discuss the rightness or wrongness of any criteria.  We assert that
>    DNSBL operators are free to choose whatever listing criteria they
>    wish, as long as those criteria are clearly and accurately
>    communicated.  It is the responsibility of the DNSBL user to ensure
>    that the listing criteria and other aspects of a DNSBL meets their
>    needs.

Taken within context of the rest of the document, the implicit "take
away" should be that any listing criteria is legitimate, as long as
they're clearly/accurately communicated, and it's the responsibility of
the user to choose the one that fits their requirements.  Without
rubbing it in lawyer/judge faces.

The slant we're trying for is that "it's all routine operational stuff".