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

[Alessandro Vesely]

Chris Lewis wrote:
> 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:

Aha, there it is! Thank you for the pointer.

>>    [...]  We assert that
>>    DNSBL operators are free to choose whatever listing criteria they
>>    wish, as long as those criteria are clearly and accurately
>>    communicated.
> 
> 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.

Such affirmations still require an endorsement more binding than the 
regular standardization process, before they can be taken for granted.
Perhaps governments should explicitly ratify STD documents?