To:
Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se>
Cc:
briansp@walid.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Simon Josefsson <simon+dnsop@josefsson.org>
Date:
15 Aug 2000 19:06:29 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<20000815171133M.liman@sunet.se>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
Subject:
Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt
Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se> writes: > > My first reaction to this document was 'so what', but I see the > > merits of recommending this as a BCP. Using DNS for this purpose > > isn't going to be a panacea for identifying responsibility domains > > for addresses, but I don't see what harm it could do, and would at > > least provide a standard document for reference purposes. > > Someone is going to question the "rules" if there is no motivation for > them. "Why should I put costly manpower into maintaining this if it's > just for someone else's convenience?" I don't think a BCP has to dictate what should be Right Thing for everyone, just what's good for the net as a whole and what would improve interopability. If people were to think "I'm spending money to make other peoples life easy", I can't see why they would follow any IETF "standards" at all. Most cost manpower to maintain. Supporting IP, SMTP, HTTP, DNS and even rev-DNS is a investment in infrastructure, they don't generate revenues themself. Just my $.2 worth.