To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Cc:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Johan Ihren <johani@autonomica.se>
Date:
05 Sep 2001 14:16:25 +0200
In-Reply-To:
Edward Lewis's message of "Mon, 3 Sep 2001 12:19:29 -0400"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) Emacs/20.3
Subject:
Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-02.txt
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com> writes: > At 11:18 AM -0400 9/3/01, Daniel Senie wrote: > >At the previous meeting the chair asked if there was interest in the draft, > >and there appeared strong support. I've received a LOT of comments and > >feedback on this draft, and there seems to be support. I am confused by the > >chair's comments, as reported by the scribe, that if there isn't strong > >support, the draft will be discarded. > > My take on the comments regarding this draft was that the chair wants to > hear a "non-security" reason why a reverse map is required. In other > words, the rationales based upon some legacy applications performing > authorizations based on the reverse lookup are not sufficient to require > reverse map. > > IMHO, there are two things for the group (of supporters) can do. One is > to document reasons that WG chair will find acceptable. The other is to > argue more strongly that security-based reasons are sufficient. > > Personally - I don't understand why security reasons are insufficient. I > am saying this not in disagreement, but from a lack of understanding. > (Perhaps I need to search the archives when I have better bandwidth.) As I see it, the issue is not that security reasons per se is insufficient cause to promote the draft, but that those security reasons are mostly false. That said, I am also in favour of the draft, but I think that the request for a "non-security reason" is valid. Regards, Johan