To:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Date:
Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:14:59 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<a05210625bab2e9d11434@[10.0.1.2]>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Wanderlust/2.10.0 (Venus) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
>>>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:57:49 +0200, >>>>> Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> said: >> But it is not very clear what the "proper operation" means. > "Proper operation" should also include any security-related functions. >> I picked >> up the examples of the discouraged usage from Section 3 based on my >> understanding of the draft. If I read it correctly, however, then I'd >> wonder why people who seemed to want rely on such a usage >> (e.g. rejecting ftp connections) are supporting the draft. > It's a matter of what is done by the programmer (assuming some > sort of "proper operation" based on rDNS), versus what may be done by > the administrator/operator (choosing to configure their machines in a > particular way so as to require correct rDNS before they allow you to > proceed). > We want to discourage programmers from depending on something > like this, while allowing owners/operators/administrators to choose > to configure their machines in whatever way they feel is appropriate. Okay, but I still see a subtle point. According to your message, - The draft wants to discourage programmers from depending on rDNS for "proper operation." - The draft will still (implicitly?) allow owners/operators/administrators to choose depending on rDNS for "proper operation." But, Does the draft also ***want to discourage*** owners/operators/administrators from depending on rDNS for proper operation? JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.