To:
Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-dns-ietf-dnsop@Space.Net>
cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date:
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:13:19 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To:
<20020222231109.A90736@Space.Net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt (was: Re:Minneapolis - agenda items please.)
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Markus Stumpf wrote: > Care should be taken IMHO to keep the wording RFC 2821 (SMTP) compliant. > RFC 2821 Section 3.1 Session Initiation > already specifies a procedure just for that case (3rd paragraph): > > The SMTP protocol allows a server to formally reject a transaction > while still allowing the initial connection as follows: > [ ...] > > Maybe a referral to the above mentioned Section would be a good idea? That's a good point. > IMHO it would be a good idea to explicitely ban the use of "0.0.0.0" > (haven't found it mentioned in the draft at all) and it probably should > be a MUST NOT. I've been trying not to put too many explicit addresses in the draft, in an attempt to keep it about principles rather than specifics (which people might interpret as complete lists). 0.0.0.0 is clearly an address which does not have global significance, but perhaps this does need stating explicitly, because people do seem to do the most stupid things. What do others think? I don't know enough about TCP/IP to know whether this ban should just be 0.0.0.0 or perhaps something wider such as 0/8. -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.