To:
Tom Limoncelli <tal@lumeta.com>, Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date:
Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:29:33 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To:
<20020215174336.GB53081@zed.isi.edu>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Tom Limoncelli wrote: > IMHO the draft/RFC is useless if it doesn't include an explicit list. On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Bill Manning wrote: > beware of explict lists. Clearly there is disagreement here. > By not listing the explicit list, you are assuming that the reader is as > smart as the author. No I'm not! My smartness index in this area is low. I do not myself have an explicit list. I fear there are plenty of things I'm unaware of. I fear that trying to construct a list will be a rathole. I'm not a network hacker, I'm an MTA implementer who just happened to end up trying to push this RFC because I've seem too many DNS screwups in connection with email. > I am constantly recommending this list to clients, and it would be useful > if there was one specific RFC that I could point them to (sort of a > "drawing a line in the sand"). I'm sure the ISP community would appreciate > it also. I'm sure that a (constantly-updated) list would be really useful. I'm not convinced either that I should be involved or that it should appear in this RFC. But I await other opinions on this issue... -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.