I have a lot of agreement for what David is saying. What I say below may
not of course point there, and he might not agree with me because this
isn't a bilaterally equal thing, to agree with someone, but I do. I think I
do agree with what he just said.
I think that prior use by private decision o
All,
On Wed, 13 May 2015 17:01:24 -0400
Lee Howard wrote:
> From: Lee Howard
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:57 AM
> To: , Alain Durand
> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
> Subject: [DNSOP] relax the requirement for PTR records?
>
> >
> > Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provid
Shane Kerr wrote:
> ...
>
> However, as far as I can tell everyone insisting that PTR is important
> is arguing that the world would be a better place if every endpoint on
> the Internet was equal.
if by "equal" you mean "so expensive that it won't be an open relay,
won't get infected with relay
Paul is correct. I wanted to extend the WGLC 2 weeks till May 22, 2015.
I believe our goal is to leverage expediency over completeness - to move
the document into official publication. If anything is missing, it can
be addresses in a -bis document within the next year.
thanks
tim
On 5/12/
I lost a more comprehensive response due to an application crash...
IMHO, asking this in DNSOP is not the right place. Judging from messages
about spam, some rely on PTRs and some rely on other approaches. That's a
better discussion, not one in front of DNS people. In the sense that no
RFC can "
On May 14, 2015, at 1:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> What qualitative difference do you see between those uses of numbers and the
> use of TLDs like CORP?
Lack of scarcity.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/d
On May 14, 2015, at 3:42 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> I have a lot of agreement for what David is saying. What I say below may not
> of course point there, and he might not agree with me because this isn't a
> bilaterally equal thing, to agree with someone, but I do. I think I do agree
> w
On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
> then say that we want every computer on the Internet to run an SMTP
> server, so every computer needs a PT
On May 14, 2015, at 6:14 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> Absolutely not (recommend ISPs should delegate). While it would be good
> if an ISP offered this to interested parties, don't expect to saddle the
> operator with yet another service that expects the customer to
> reply/provide out-of-band inf
> > Absolutely not (recommend ISPs should delegate). While it would be good
> > if an ISP offered this to interested parties, don't expect to saddle the
> > operator with yet another service that expects the customer to
> > reply/provide out-of-band information.
>
> The point of delegating is is
In article <0ee18e9e-e7d2-42e3-aee8-9a43c4032...@nominum.com> you write:
>On May 14, 2015, at 1:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>
>> What qualitative difference do you see between those uses of numbers and the
>> use of TLDs like CORP?
>
>Lack of scarcity.
+1
R's,
John
__
On May 14, 2015, at 8:13 AM, wrote:
>
> For our residential customers, should we be expected to delegate
> lots of reverse zones that mostly wouldn't be populated? I can easily
> see how this could lead to extra calls to customer support, extra
> logging of failures on name servers, etc. In shor
We agree its a view well out of scope. I don't agree we should imagine this
_decision_ is devoid of consequence in the real world and can be treated as
a technical question with no other consideration. I think almost any
decision made on technical merit facing the questions of naming and
addressin
George, I didn't get into your game theory because I think it's irrelevant.
The IETF process is not a fast process. If parasitical organizations decide to
try to get the calories they need from us rather than from ICANN, I am pretty
sure they will quickly learn that this is futile. It might bri
I got to air my view. I concur its not a majority view. I don't feel I have
to "have the last word" and I respect you really do think this is a good
idea, and even meets the technical merit consideration for the process as
designed.
So I'm pretty ok with people weighing this up on the strengths an
Ted,
> On May 14, 2015, at 1:03 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> What qualitative difference do you see between those uses of numbers and the
>> use of TLDs like CORP?
>
> Lack of scarcity.
Sorry, I don't understand this response in the context of whether or not the
folks making use of the space "o
Ted,
> But in the case of .onion, .corp and .home, we _do_ have such a reason.
Great! What is that reason so it can be encoded into an RFC, can be measured,
and there can be an objective evaluation as to whether a prospective name can
be placed into the Special Use Names registry?
Thanks,
-dr
> On May 14, 2015, at 11:21 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> However, as I said, how it is labeled is somewhat irrelevant. What matters to
> me is figuring out the objective criteria by which we can determine whether
> and/or how a particular label is being used so much that its delegation in
> the
On May 14, 2015, at 11:21 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> However, as I said, how it is labeled is somewhat irrelevant. What matters to
> me is figuring out the objective criteria by which we can determine whether
> and/or how a particular label is being used so much that its delegation in
> the
Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
>> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
>> then say that we want every computer on the Internet to run an SMTP
>> server, so
On 5/14/15 11:25 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>>> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
>>> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
>>> then say that we want every compu
> > so, my hope is that we could recommend against machine-generated PTR's,
> > and recommend in favour of PTR delegation when a customer requests it,
> > all while understanding that ISP's will do whatever they want after they
> > see whatever recommendations we make.
> >
>
> I would vastly pref
Lyman,
> I understand the desire to have objective criteria, but in this case your
> call for a bright-line distinction between "dangerous" and "not dangerous"
> labels is an obvious red herring.
It's not so obvious to me that dangerous/not is a red herring, particularly
since that was one of
On May 14, 2015, at 4:10 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Lyman,
>
>> I understand the desire to have objective criteria, but in this case your
>> call for a bright-line distinction between "dangerous" and "not dangerous"
>> labels is an obvious red herring.
>
> It's not so obvious to me that danger
My 2 cents...
The presence or absence of a PTR record is, to me, like a reverse-DNS Literacy
Test.
History records that Literacy Tests didn't fare too well, as voting
requirements, in the "real" (non-IT) world. In fact, they were just thin
pretexts for racial bigotry, recognized as such, and
On May 14, 2015, at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> It would be super-annoying for delegations to nameservers that do not
> exist to occur for these, because not only will there be trillions of
> them but I get to wait for them to time out, so delegation to cpe for
> example seems like a non-starte
On May 14, 2015, at 3:55 PM, wrote:
> what do you do
> when the customer goes off net, or acquires a new dynamic address?
> Does the protocol take care to *remove* the old delegation then?
Yes.
As to the error rate, actually if this is designed and implemented properly the
error rate could be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ted Lemon wrote:
> George, I didn't get into your game theory because I think it's
> irrelevant. The IETF process is not a fast process. If
> parasitical organizations decide to try to get the calories they
> need from us rather than from ICANN, I
28 matches
Mail list logo
