On 11/5/14 12:50 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > >> Andrew Sullivan <mailto:a...@anvilwalrusden.com> >> Wednesday, November 05, 2014 10:50 AM >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 >> ... >> ... 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. > the lack of consensus means it can't be a proposed standard, not that it > can't be an FYI, BCP or similar, right?
BCP requires consensus after a fashion very similar to a standards track document. something with no-consensus basis would probably go to the ISE. Some that people do not oppose publication of even if they disagree with it might be informational. but this is all jail-house lawyering, if the w.g. can't build a consensus then it doesn't advance as a w.g. document. > > the fact of the network is, without a PTR you will have a hard time > originating TCP/25. we should say that. > > another fact is, not everyone who should be able to (non-maliciously) > access your web service will have a PTR. we should say that, too. > > those aren't opinions and they shouldn't be controversial. > > -- > Paul Vixie > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
