RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

[Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>]

At 05:55 PM 4/2/2003, Ray Plzak wrote:
>If the purpose of this draft is to propose policy, then it should not be
>an item for the WG, but should be put into the RIR policy process.

That is not the purpose. I would be happy to separately work with the RIRs 
on policy proposals.

>   If
>the purpose of the draft is to define real technical reasons why in-addr
>are required then the work should proceed and be judged on that merit.

It is the purpose of this draft to define the reasons to promote the use of 
INADDR, and to also discourage usage that can be harmful and which provides 
false security (please note that most or all of the text regarding NOT 
using INADDR came from contributions from the DNSOP WG at or shortly after 
the Pittsburgh IETF, and were not in the original document).

As Rob mentioned the tone and direction of this document has changed from 
the original I-D which I wrote some years back. The changes were largely 
brought about by input from the WG in the past. Echoing Rob, I encourage 
folks to read beyond the title line and evaluate the content. I am planning 
to replace "Require" with "Encourage" in the title of the document in the 
next revision, though the file naming will likely continue to have the word 
"required" in it.


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dnsop@cafax.se [mailto:owner-dnsop@cafax.se] On
> > Behalf Of Rob Austein
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:32 PM
> > To: dnsop@cafax.se
> > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
> >
> >
> > So far we've heard from:
> >
> > - Ray, who pointed out some RIR-related (specifically, ARIN-related)
> >   text that needs some work;
> >
> > - Måns, who liked the draft and suggested adding text discussing IPv6;
> >
> > - Dean, who says that we should not be working on this draft.
> >
> > Does anybody -else- have comments on this draft?  In particular: does
> > anybody who has not yet spoken on this have an opinion on whether the
> > WG should be working on this?
> >
> > Note to anyone who has not figured this out yet: the title of the
> > draft is old, does not match the content of the draft as it evolved,
> > and most likely would be changed before publication to match the
> > current content of the draft.  Please READ THE DRAFT rather than
> > jumping to conclusions about what it says based on the title.


#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.