To:
Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
steve ulrich <sulrich@botwerks.org>
Date:
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:48:52 -0600
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3E7F44F5.4060102@daimlerchrysler.com>
Reply-To:
sulrich@botwerks.org
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.4i
Subject:
Re: [RETRANSMIT] Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doingreverse for IPv6.
when last we saw our hero (Monday, Mar 24, 2003), Kevin Darcy was madly tapping out: > Brad Knowles wrote: > > > > > I will repeat, I do not depend on [IPv4 reverse DNS] at all. > >However, there are others that have demonstrated that they have > >real applications which make valid use of it, and they are unable > >or unwilling to stand up for themselves. > > And what, exactly, qualifies you to be the mouthpiece for this > "silent constituency"? If anyone has valid uses for reverse DNS, I > say let them speak for themselves. why is this so difficult for folks? there are perfectly valid reasons for having reverse DNS. if people choose to update and support rDNS on their networks more power to them. POLA alone should be enough reason to keep the functionality around. i don't think that anyone here is actively promoting f-r-f checks as a comprehensive integrity check. however, there are existing IPv4 applications, admittedly poorly crafted - which expect this behavior. ideally, they would fix this behavior as the move to IPv6. but some will not. for an incremental amount of additional effort they have their IPv6 DNS world behave like their IPv4 DNS world did. what's it to you? don't rob folks of convenience based on personal views on this matter. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.