Re: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations: ambiguity?

2007-02-06 Thread Måns Nilsson
--On tisdag, tisdag 6 feb 2007 09.43.18 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to know whether people think that is a reasonable thing to > say. If the answer is, "No," then I'm not sure what we can say about > reverse mappings at all. I think the draft is a good compromise

Re: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations: ambiguity?

2007-02-06 Thread Dean Anderson
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:43:18 -0500 Andrew wrote: > AS> [...] In other words, the draft as written says, I think, that > AS> administrator of site A is perfectly entitled to make decisions about > AS> site B on the basis of reverse mappings, _but_, the administrator of > AS> site A is cautioned th

Re: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations: ambiguity?

2007-02-06 Thread Robert Story
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:43:18 -0500 Andrew wrote: AS> [...] In other words, the draft as written says, I think, that AS> administrator of site A is perfectly entitled to make decisions about AS> site B on the basis of reverse mappings, _but_, the administrator of AS> site A is cautioned that there a

Re: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations: ambiguity?

2007-02-06 Thread Andrew Sullivan
Hi, Thanks for your careful reading and measured comments. Thanks also for the suggested text. Before I deal with some of the issues you raise in your posting, I want to request some feedback from the wider group on what is clearly the central question in this discussion. I'd like to get a gene