Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:15:01AM -0400, [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-04.txt
The draft mentioned above reflects the contemplated changes that I
sent to the list in the time since the -03 draft. It is mostly
unchanged from the -03 submission, but it _does_ include the
contemplated reference to RFC 1912, as well as an explicit remark
(occasioned by Mark Andrews's and Dean Anderson's comments) that
overzealous interpretation of RFC 1912 can have deleterious effects
(this latter at the end of section 4.4). I take that to be a (small)
substantive change in the document that diverges from the outlined
list of planned changes, so I am drawing attention to it.
I will note also that we did _not_ include an exhortation to
implement DNSSEC in the Security Considerations section. We did not
receive much in the way of feedback on the suggestion one way or the
other. Because such an exhortation seems to be merely a request that
everyone implement something already elsewhere defined, we thought it
might set a bad precedent. The document already includes references
to the RFCs in question, so operators can presumably draw their own
conclusions.
As always, comments are solicited. It is our fervent hope that we
have either adequately addressed the comments we have received in
this draft, or explained on the list why we did not discuss those
issues. Your editors shall enthusiastically receive and attempt to
address specific comments that reference the current text, or that
explicitly refers to discussion on the list to which we have never
provided an answer.
Best regards,
Andrew
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
