Dear colleagues, On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:44:49PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Since the core problem here is that people are not realising that there > really is no "forward" and "reverse" namespace (there's just a single > namespace plus some conventions) Loathe as I am to endure this again, the reverse mapping problems keep cropping up, and I keep feeling like a bunch of distinctions in the failed reverse-mapping-considerations draft [1] were helpful to making some things clearer. Am I the only one? If not, please send your remarks to the effect that at least something there was worth doing (and specify what it was). You can do it off list. If I get something that seems like encouragement rather than hellfire v2, I'll poke Daniel and see whether we can at least make those parts live again. [1] For those of you spared the last time, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
