Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:50:02PM -0500, [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 : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
> Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
> Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt
> Pages : 12
> Date : 2007-2-26
This is the version of the draft I said I'd be uploading.
In this version, we have addressed the two remaining open issues as
we said we would:
1. We closed issue 14, by removing emotionally charged terms like
"accurate reverse". Nobody replied to my question as to whether
the proposed modifications would satisfy those objecting. I
believe that the document has been changed to address the
substance of any objection here, though.
2. We closed issue 15, by noting that some RIRs do in fact have
policies encouraging the reverse mapping (i.e. along the lines I
proposed in
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00072.html>.
Brett Carr responded that this addressed his concerns.
In addition, we have made a few changes to try to address the issues
that came up in the thread starting at
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05370.html>.
Here are some highlights of how the document changed to try to address
the concerns raised in that thread:
1. We adjusted the Abstract to make it more clear that there was a
(qualified) recommendation in the document.
2. We noted at the beginning of section 3 that that section's reports
of what people are in fact doing should not be understood as
either approbation or disapproval of the practice.
3. We augumented the discussion of anti-spam systems to note that not
all reverse mapping checks are binary checks: sometimes they are
part of a scoring system.
4. The discussion of the implications of relying on reverse tree
checks in section 4 is made slightly stronger, and (in particular)
has had its controversial nature emphasised.
I hope that these modifications address the remaining concerns of
those who previously objected. In my opinion, this document says the
same thing as the previous version did, but if these modifications
make it clearer to some, then the goal of another round of work will
have been met.
Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
