Ed, having reviewed the document, can you assure us that it doesn't
contain any language that might be understood as implying that reverse
DNS records are somehow required?
Can you assure us that it doesn't contain any language that might be
understood as implying that using reverse DNS for security is anything
but a crock'? (as Ted Lemon wrote)
Can you assure us that Mr. Sullivan, despite his advocacy of making
in-addr required, despite his advocacy of using reverse DNS for
security, and despite his advocacy of irrational decision-making
processes (cf discussion on DNSOP February & March '07), hasn't used
this draft as a platform to obtain an the IETF RFC credential to promote
discredited practices and thereby mislead people about reverse DNS?
--Dean
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt
>
> >> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt
>
> I would change the wording from this
>
> #3.1 Examples of effects of missing reverse mapping
> #
> # Following are some examples of some of the uses to which reverse
>
> to this
>
> #3.1 Examples of effects of missing reverse mapping
> #
> # Following are some examples of uses to which reverse
>
> That's the only comment I have on the draft. The one change I have
> is only wording ("some" used twice in the same sentence) - nothing of
> substance and certainly a change I could live without seeing made.
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
