At 11:18 AM -0400 9/3/01, Daniel Senie wrote:
>At the previous meeting the chair asked if there was interest in the draft,
>and there appeared strong support. I've received a LOT of comments and
>feedback on this draft, and there seems to be support. I am confused by the
>chair's comments, as reported by the scribe, that if there isn't strong
>support, the draft will be discarded.
My take on the comments regarding this draft was that the chair wants to
hear a "non-security" reason why a reverse map is required. In other
words, the rationales based upon some legacy applications performing
authorizations based on the reverse lookup are not sufficient to require
reverse map.
IMHO, there are two things for the group (of supporters) can do. One is
to document reasons that WG chair will find acceptable. The other is to
argue more strongly that security-based reasons are sufficient.
Personally - I don't understand why security reasons are insufficient. I
am saying this not in disagreement, but from a lack of understanding.
(Perhaps I need to search the archives when I have better bandwidth.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.
Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.
