To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Peter Koch <pk@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Date:
Thu, 03 Apr 2003 09:45:39 +0200
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:32:12 CDT." <20030402223212.5111218E1@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
> 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? With the promised changes in wording and trying to avoid the ``policy'' debate I am in favor of re-opening this issue and again accept this draft as a work item for the WG. Despite its potential abuses (we don't ban http, do we?) I believe reverse mapping is a valuable resource. In addition, since we're unlikely to succeed in changing the installed base, the factors DNS server load and latency, as mentioned in the draft, suggest to "do something" about it. Anyone operating a nameserver covering a larger amount of /16s down to the leaves should have a look at their query statistics. Reverse mapping for IPv6 should be dealt with in a seperate document. -Peter #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.