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

[Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>]

At 4:24 PM -0400 2003/04/07, Dean Anderson wrote:

>  My views are neither "convictions", nor "strongly held". They just happen
>  to be logically correct. The "strongly held convictions" are those that
>  refuse to accept logical arguments and the consequences of deduction.

	Methinks thou doth protest too much.


	Despite all your claims to the contrary, claiming that "strongly 
held convictions" are actually fact is merely proof of the depth to 
which you hold these convictions -- in your world, it appears that 
they are actually fact.

	However, in the real world....

>  Actually, it is still quite common to find logs without IP addresses.

	Evidence, please.

>  There are still a number of unix implementations that have syslog's and
>  wtmp's that don't have anything but the in-addr response (and only 64
>  bytes of that).

	Evidence, please.

>                   For example, Linux stores the in-addr for IPv4, and the
>  IP address for IPv6.

	There is no one single "Linux".  There are many different 
versions of the Linux kernel.  There are many Linux distributions 
that may or may not make use of a particular Linux kernel.  For any 
particular subsystem, there are probably at least two to six or more 
different major variants of that system, and a particular 
distribution may or may not choose to use a particular one.

>  However, I am not saying it is inappropriate to store in-addr as secondary
>  information. I am saying it is inappropriate to use in-addr as the primary
>  information.  Those are different things.

	Insofar as this statement goes, I agree.  If only you would not 
use this as a jumping-off point for making every possible attempt to 
destroy all possible use of reverse DNS.

>  You seem to miss the point: PTR information can _never_ be relied by
>  itself.  There is no case where it can be relied on. It is silly to keep
>  repeating this point.

	Who said that we'd be doing this, or suggesting this?

	Everything I've read (so far) indicates that we're talking about 
making use of this information as an added data point, above and 
beyond the bare IP address.

>  Yes.  Only the IP address can be relied on.  If you have the IP address,
>  you don't need the IN-ADDR.

	Wrong.  It can be a useful piece of information, information that 
may not be around in a few days or a few months, when you decide to 
try to look up that IP address.  It's important not to destroy or 
throw away information unnecessarily.

>  _YOU_ can do whatever you want to. Just don't expect the rest of use to
>  change our IN-ADDR zones to suit your misguided and illogical convictions.

	It is entirely within your right to choose to do whatever you 
want with your DNS zones.

	However, I must insist once again that you refrain from removing 
from others their own right to make the same choice.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
     -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.