On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: > > I guess > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06
> 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. I'd be willing to try again if people really think it's worth doing, but the discussion just in this thread suggests to me that the result would be the same. For those who managed to miss the last round of this, that document ended up saying, "There is a reverse tree; some people maintain it and some don't. Some people like to rely on it, but it is important to be aware that not everyone maintains it. If someone relies on the reverse tree and you don't maintain it for your site, you might have surprising results." At the time, I believed I had watered down the draft so thoroughly that it would be impossible for anyone to disagree with it. I was evidently wrong. If we're going to bring that thing back up (in any sense you like), then I think it needs to get a spine. Perhaps also my willingness to try to find consensus has declined in the intervening years: I just don't think there _is_ a consensus on this. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
