Em 13/05/2015, à(s) 12:05:000, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca escreveu:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's, such
I'm revising draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns again. Several folks have said
something like, There should be no expectation that a residential ISP will
populate PTRs for all of its customers. When I started this document, five
or six years ago, there didn't seem to be consensus on that point. I hear a
lot
Lee,
I think this is reasonable.
(I'd actually like to go further and say there is no expectation that
there is a PTR for any address, but I recognize this is a minority
view.) ;)
Cheers,
--
Shane
On Wed, 13 May 2015 10:57:21 -0400
Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
I'm revising
Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
ISPs should delegate the relevant part of the IPv6 reverse DNS tree to the
customer, so the customer can provision PTR records as required.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's, such a consensus would mean taking the ability away from
people running their own
Lee Howard wrote:
(I think we generally agree that PTRs for servers are good).
Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
You are effectively saying that ISPs can forbid their customers
run good servers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/13/2015 05:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
which means that ICANN is sitting on $3.7 million in
application fees which they will presumably have to refund, as well as
five withdrawn applications from parties who got partial refunds and
would
Lyman,
It is neither: it is a DNS operational issue. A large number of people are
apparently squatting on CORP/HOME/MAIL. Delegation of those TLDs would thus
impact that large number of people.
I think it is inaccurate (and unhelpful) to refer to the people who have been
using
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7534
Title: AS112 Nameserver Operations
Author: J. Abley, W. Sotomayor
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
Date: May 2015
Mailbox:
From: Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:57 AM
To: shu...@gmail.com, Alain Durand alain.dur...@icann.org
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] relax the requirement for PTR records?
Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provide PTRs for
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 7535
Title: AS112 Redirection Using DNAME
Author: J. Abley, B. Dickson,
W. Kumari, G. Michaelson
Status: Informational
Stream: IETF
The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different. They
are, in this
fundamental resolution nature.
I was under the impression that part of the problem with .corp was
that there were a lot of SSL certificates floating around. The
CAs are supposed to have stopped issuing
But I suspect you know this, so I'm unclear why you claim they're already spoken
for.
I wasn't clear -- the IETF should document that they're unavailable, just
like .ARPA and .TEST aren't available.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider
John,
On May 13, 2015, at 1:51 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different. They
are, in this
fundamental resolution nature.
I was under the impression that part of the problem with .corp was
that there were a lot of SSL
In homenet we discussed how the CPE can outsource the reverse zone to a third
party. This means that we considered the reverse zone generation could be
delegated to each customer by the ISP.
BR,
Daniel
-Original Message-
From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted
On 5/13/15, 11:12 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
ISPs should delegate the relevant part of the IPv6 reverse DNS tree to the
customer, so the customer can provision PTR
Not defined today. Should we define it:
Sibling: a node at the same level. For instance, A.example.com is a
sibling of B.example.com.
or should we just remind the reader that standard tree terminology do
apply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure#Terminology_and_properties?
On Wed, 13 May 2015 11:05:16 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's,
On May 13, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
ISPs should delegate the relevant part of the IPv6 reverse DNS tree to the
customer, so the customer can provision PTR records as required.
Yes, this is what we should recommend. I don't expect all ISPs to do this, but
it's the
On 13 May 2015, at 16:12, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
ISPs should delegate the relevant part of the IPv6 reverse DNS tree to the
customer, so the customer can provision PTR records as required.
An ISP should have the ability to *provision* that. Whether they actually
delegate this or not
Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote:
The typical retail customer doesn't even know DNS exists or how to make
changes to it and why they might need to do so.
That is an argument for delegating relevant zones to the customer's
equipment so that it can be auto-configured. e.g. the customer clicks a
On May 13, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Shane Kerr sh...@time-travellers.org wrote:
I thought it was best practice to block SMTP from residential
customers? This is the case for my past 3 ISPs (although one had an
opt-out if you really wanted to run a mail server).
It's probably not a good idea to
Lee Howard wrote:
I’m revising draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns again. Several folks have said
something like, “There should be no expectation that a residential ISP
will populate PTRs for all of its customers.” When I started this
document, five or six years ago, there didn’t seem to be consensus
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:05:16AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's, such a consensus
On 5/13/15, 11:05 AM, Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don¹t need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's, such a consensus would mean
On May 13, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we
should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else. Managing
top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS --
On May 13, 2015, at 6:05 PM, David Conrad wrote:
John,
On May 13, 2015, at 1:51 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
The distinction I'm making suggests why corp and onion seem different.
They are, in this
fundamental resolution nature.
I was under the impression that part of the
Tony Finch wrote:
Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote:
The typical retail customer doesn't even know DNS exists or how to make
changes to it and why they might need to do so.
That is an argument for delegating relevant zones to the customer's
equipment so that it can be auto-configured. e.g.
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote:
Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their
customers?
No.
As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6
without PTR's, such a consensus would mean taking the ability away from
At Wed, 13 May 2015 09:02:25 -0700,
Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
I’m revising draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns again. Several folks have said
something like, “There should be no expectation that a residential ISP
will populate PTRs for all of its customers.” When I started this
document,
FWIW, I agree w/ Paul and Ted. Customer should have the option to fill in
reverse IPv6 tree.
Arent we headed toward a society where we all become content providers with
the cloud just a recurring fad?
-Rick
-Original Message-
From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
I think you're missing a distinction I was making, however, which is that we
should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else. Managing
top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the DNS -- even if
people expect them to be part of a local root or otherwise not actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/13/2015 03:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
we should not be poaching on turf already handed to someone else.
Managing top-level domains that are intended to be looked up in the
DNS -- even if people expect them to be part of a local root or
33 matches
Mail list logo
