Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt

[Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se>]

lindberg@cdg.chalmers.se:
> Personally I see absolutely no harm in a (BCP) RFC saying "do this",
> regardless of available "enforcement mechanisms".

I'm for rev-DNS, but for me to be able to tell others to do it, with a
clear conscience, I need to have a motivation, and that should be a
motivation that I can take to limited-IP-clue-people, and say "this is
why you should have reverse DNS".

With forward DNS I can:

  Technician: If your forward DNS doesn't work, people can't get to
              your web pages, an cannot shop from your web shop. We would
              lose money.
  Customer:   Oh?! That's bad! Please make sure it works.

But:

  Technician: If your reverse DNS doesn't work, my friends on the 'net
              cannot help us to solve problems, and it _may_ be that
              we have problems reaching one or two ill-configured web
              sites out there.
  Customer:   Who cares?! The 'net works now, and I don't care about
              those web sites anyhow.

Help us find and formulate such a motivation, and put it in the
document, and we'll all be happier for ever on! (TM) :-)

If we can't find a _good_ motivation, I see no basis for the document
to become a BCP. The motivation is really the big point here.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, Systems Specialist	! E-mail: liman@sunet.se
# KTH Network Operations Centre         ! HTTP  : //www.sunet.se/~liman
# Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden	! Voice : Int +46 8 - 790 65 60
#----------------------------------------------------------------------