To:
Jerry Scharf <scharf@vix.com>
CC:
Lars-Johan Liman <liman@sunet.se>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:40:44 -0400
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt
Jerry Scharf wrote: > > I've been trying to stay out of this, but I just can't help myself. > > This draft misses the point completely! The goal is not to require PTR > records, since as it is pointed out, "xxx" is a perfectly valid value > according to the draft and gives no useful information. Also, despite the > title, there is not one MUST in the document so there are no requirements set > forth. At the DNSOP meeting, I received a lot of negative feedback about the use of MUSTs, so I changed them. I guess I'm wrong either way. > > IMO, for this draft to have value it must take on the issue of what is > meaningful in PTR records. That would be worth a BCP, and pointing at it might > produce useful benefit to the Internet. Text reenforcing the importance of > general use of PTRs would be an appropriate part of such a BCP, but is not > useful on it's own. > > To do this, the draft must briefly examine the uses of PTR records and make > some recommendations that find a balance between narrow and broad. It could > even make references to things like LOC, that could also be useful if > generally deployed. This follows nicely the questions that the chair posed. > I don't disagree. I welcome all input. > I also believe that there needs to be a paragraph in the security section of > any draft that reenforces the need to not blindly accept the information given > in the PTR record. Good input, thanks. > > jerry -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com