To:
Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>
cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
Date:
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:17:06 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To:
<20030325000530.2F2B018ED@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [RETRANSMIT] Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doingreverse for IPv6.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Rob Austein wrote:
> I don't buy the argument that we need to abolish reverse DNS just
> because some people misuse it.
No, of course that isn't a good enough reason do abolish reverse. You
missed this:
-------------------- From a previous message:
I am only advocating we drop Reverse from IPV6. With regard to IPv4, I am
only advocating we make it deprecated, which will not affect any current
users, except to put them on notice that they shouldn't be using reverse
except for non-critical convenience functions, and that they should not
expect this functionality in IPv6.
Our position on Reverse is not motivated purely by the lack of utility of
Reverse---Just the opposite. I find reverse to be convenient. Nor is it
^^^^^^^^^
compelling that some administrators might abuse reverse. The most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
compelling harm, and the reason the WG should act, is the combination of
the determination of believers that reverse DNS can be used for
authentication, and the fact that programmers embed these assumptions into
software, which is not easily changed by the end users. The WG should act
to avert this problem.
Complications for doing reverse in IPV6 contribute to this argument, which
makes it even more sensible to not do reverse in IPV6. Deprecation in
IPV4, as I noted, puts users and implementors on notice about how Reverse
should and should not be used, without actually removing that convenience
from IPv4 networks.
-------------------- From a previous message
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.