On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: > Am I preaching to the choir, or do people disagree with me? > > It would be good to let your opinions be known.
Yes, I disagree. > Otherwise, we might allow further misleading and false claims about > whether in-addr is required. In-addr is not required, nor will this draft > (despite its misleading name) change that. It should also not be allowed > to mislead people on the policies of other organizations, nor should it be > allowed to promote bad practices by applications or otherwise mislead > people as to the purpose and utility of in-addr. The document should be revised to take out all the upper-case keywords and bogus things like: Regional Registries and any Local Registries to whom they delegate SHOULD establish and convey a policy to those to whom they delegate blocks that IN-ADDR mappings are required. Policies SHOULD require those receiving delegations to provide IN-ADDR service and/or delegate to downstream customers. .. even if this would be a good practice, it's not an IETF business to set these requirements or so it would seem to me. On the other hand, it's fine to discuss the tradeoffs of in-addr mappings, why it would make sense to have them (or why not), how they are set up properly, etc. -- all of this is what (IMHO) the document should be doing. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
