For the reasons just discussed under the subject titles
Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re:
Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6,
this draft should be rejected.
However, if you want to continue discussing the topic of Reverse, I am
certainly willing.
--Dean
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, [ISO-8859-1] M�ns Nilsson wrote:
> --On Monday, March 31, 2003 06:44:16 -0500 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
> > Operations Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> > Title : Requiring DNS IN-ADDR Mapping
> > Author(s) : D. Senie
> > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
> > Pages : 5
> > Date : 2003-3-28
> >
> > Mapping of addresses to names has been a feature of DNS. Many sites,
> > implement it, many others don't. Some applications attempt to use it
> > as a part of a security strategy. The goal of this document is to
> > encourage proper deployment of address to name mappings, and provide
> > guidance for their use.
>
> This is a good draft. One thing might be desired, though:
>
> Inclusion of a v6 section, or, at least, mentioning of the fact that
> v6 deserves reverse, too. If, of course, we think it should be there.
>
> --
> M�ns Nilsson Systems Specialist
> +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
>
> We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
