Jerry Scharf wrote:
>
> 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.
At the DNSOP meeting, I received a lot of negative feedback about the
use of MUSTs, so I changed them. I guess I'm wrong either way.
>
> 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 don't disagree. I welcome all input.
> 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.
Good input, thanks.
>
> jerry
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
