On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> > wrote: >> Since it's been >> a while, and the operator community is still asking for guidance, I've >> updated it, and would like a renewed review of it as an individual >> submission (unless this WG or v6ops wants it). > > The document looks pretty good to me, except that the motivation section is > likely to be controversial (as I'm sure you are aware). The reasons you > state are not reasons that I personally find motivational; I want a working > reverse tree because it's a way to publish information about an address, both > for debugging purposes and for operational purposes (e.g., DANE). > > I could make some suggestions about this section, but I think it might be > better to just take it out. I would just ditch the text in the introduction > starting with "Some of the most..." and the three bullet items that follow it. > > Aside from this quibble, I think the document is useful and should be > published. Ted, I agree with this assessment, and perhaps it does make sense to update or remove as needed in a follow-up version. I support this document being published, in order to provide the options that operators can take as they deploy IPv6 and support it in their DNS platforms. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
