On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> but if others disagree with me, I will cheerfully include your
> suggestions.
It seems others disagree.
> (By the way, I appreciate that you are willing to comment on the
> draft, since you said that there is no way it could be modified to
> address y
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
> activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
> by you (ref
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?
http://
Hi Kevin,
First, my apologies. I somehow misplaced this email, and neither
responded to it at the time nor included it when going over all the
issues to address in the -03 draft, which was submitted this morning. I
was actually looking for something else in the mailing list archive
when I came a
Rob Austein wrote:
This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
Hi Dean,
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:31:36AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> No; I looked further into the context of that statement, and I cited
> that context to you in my previous message: The purpose of the TCP
> Wrappers tool was to provide _logs_ for programs which didn't produce
> logs and fo
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:12:24AM -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> I think it's useful, but I also think you should have a concluding
> paragraph on why it's no longer a recommended practice. Something along
> the lines of "as attack became more sophisticated, they included
> spoofing reponses to rev
Hi,
I'd like to send a couple of comments on
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-00, coming from my experience as an AS112
operator at NaMeX.
1) I don't see anything related to interface configuration of the
192.175.48.{1,6,42} addresses in the draft. I don't know if this is
something which is avoided on
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:24:48 -0400 Andrew wrote:
AS> We received a suggestion that a short section outlining the history of
AS> the use of reverse mapping in security contexts would be a good thing
AS> to add to the reverse-mapping-considerations draft. I have some
AS> proposed text to add. Befor
