I've been trying to stay out of this, but I just can't help myself.
This draft misses the point completely! The goal is not to require PTR
records, since as it is pointed out, "xxx" is a perfectly valid value
according to the draft and gives no useful information. Also, despite the
title, there is not one MUST in the document so there are no requirements set
forth.
IMO, for this draft to have value it must take on the issue of what is
meaningful in PTR records. That would be worth a BCP, and pointing at it might
produce useful benefit to the Internet. Text reenforcing the importance of
general use of PTRs would be an appropriate part of such a BCP, but is not
useful on it's own.
To do this, the draft must briefly examine the uses of PTR records and make
some recommendations that find a balance between narrow and broad. It could
even make references to things like LOC, that could also be useful if
generally deployed. This follows nicely the questions that the chair posed.
I also believe that there needs to be a paragraph in the security section of
any draft that reenforces the need to not blindly accept the information given
in the PTR record.
jerry
