To step back up a level again. Most ISPs and most email/spam folks find the current v4 pointer usage to be functional. I'm not saying that we all think it's not somewhat broken, couldn't be better, etc. However, it solves the problems it's supposed to solve in a functional way and doesn't generate lots of customer complaints.
This draft basically outlines how to get more or less the same level of functionality and trust that exists in v4 in v6. The techniques being described in the draft are in use or being implemented soon and there is value in having an IETF draft that documents what is being done and what the operational tradeoffs are. Describing current state of operations and operational tradeoffs is the DNSOP bailiwick. There have been several comments about wanting to clean up PTR usage, either doing better in v6, or in both v4 and v6. There were also several folks observing that documenting how PTRs are actually being used would be handy. I think both a "how are PTRs currently used" and a "how to do better with PTRs" are both useful but should be separate drafts from this one. I'd even push that the "how to do better" talk about v4 and v6. As an operator, I'm not sure when or if I'd ever be allowed to spend resources to clean things up. However, if we can document what will actually break and how and why to better and there's some business problem solved or business opportunity created, I might have a fighting chance of getting resources to do this. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
