To:
kent@songbird.com
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:01:02 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<20030407190335.A7350@songbird.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
At 7:03 PM -0700 2003/04/07, kent@songbird.com wrote:
> It should be pointed out that an IP address cannot always be "relied
> on", either.
Indeed. This is a point that I had made earlier, but which
appears to have been conveniently ignored by the destructionists.
> IP addresses and ptr records are just two different kinds
> of information, with different characteristics. The usefulness of
> either depends on the context.
Agreed.
> As far as the draft is concerned, I believe that its conclusion should
> be:
>
> Population of the inverse tree with useful information should be
> encouraged, but neither required nor relied upon.
I would modify that to state that software authors (and OS
vendors) should not use it by default, or at least not by itself --
the IP address should also be provided. However, the owner of the
system should be free to configure the software to use this
information, if they so choose.
> Other than that, I think the draft could be expanded to include more
> examples of the disparate ways that the inverse tree is actually used
> in practice, both good and bad.
Agreed.
--
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>.