At Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:23:52 -0400, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping > > Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan > > Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt > > Pages : 14 > > Date : 2007-6-4 > > This version of the draft attempts to close all the known outstanding > issues _except_ for the expression "in use" for an address. That > issue will need to be addressed in a -04 version. Comments are > solicited on this version of the draft. Thanks for the update. I've read the 03 version, and found that most of my previous comments http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05418.html were not actually addressed (or perhaps ignored or rejected?). In particular, I now more strongly wonder why this document still keeps the strong recommendation: all IP addresses in use within a range should have a reverse mapping. (I guess the above mentioned 'exception' is different from the recommendation itself; I'd apologize if not) I stated in my previous comments: > We should not forget that providing and maintaining reverse mappings > require operational costs (even though it's not very high). IMO, when > we recommend one *should* provide something that comes with a cost, we > should give a convincing reason why they should do it. The rationale > is still missing in this version. As I commented on the previous > version of the draft, none of the described issues or usages seems a > convincing reason for such a strong requirement. I'm not sure if this point was missed or ignored or rejected, or perhaps I misunderstood the 03 version, but I still cannot see a convincing reason for the strong suggestion in this version. Is there any specific reason that we cannot make the statement more moderate like this? it is encouraged for a network administrator to provide a reverse mapping for IP addresses in use within a range when the management cost is acceptable for the administrator. For other specific comments shown in msg05418.html, I'll point out which comments I don't think are addressed if necessary; please let me know in that case. Thanks, JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
