At Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:31:07 -0700, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> if there were an RFC (let's be charitable and assume it would have to be > an FYI due to lack of consensus) that gave reasons why PTR's would be > needed and reasons why the absence might be better (so, internet access > vs. internet service), then that RFC might give our last-mile industry > buddies the air cover they need to be first movers in dropping PTR's for > both V6 and V4 "internet access" addresses. [...] I guess https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 (also in the references section of draft-howard-dnsop-ip6rdns-00, but doesn't seem to be actually referenced from the draft body) tried to become this kind of RFC (ignoring subtle implication differences). Unfortunately the draft was dead in a lot of controversy, and I think we're seeing the same type of varied opinions on this thread. I personally think if we can agree on the content this time, such a document will be very useful, but we should carefully learn from the previous failure so we won't repeat it. -- JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
