Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.)
As I see it, the issue is not that security reasons per se is
insufficient cause to promote the draft, but that those security
reasons are mostly false.
That said, I am also in favour of the draft, but I think that the
request for a "non-security reason" is valid.
Regards,
Johan
