To:
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B
<jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Cc:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:19:10 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<y7v4r574v18.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
At 11:14 PM +0900 2003/04/09, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
> Okay, but I still see a subtle point. According to your message,
>
> - The draft wants to discourage programmers from depending on rDNS for
> "proper operation."
Correct.
> - The draft will still (implicitly?) allow
> owners/operators/administrators to choose depending on rDNS for
> "proper operation."
Also correct.
> But,
>
> Does the draft also ***want to discourage***
> owners/operators/administrators from depending on rDNS for proper
> operation?
My view is that the draft should say something like:
... owners/operators/administrators MAY choose to configure
their software to make use of rDNS as an added source of
information when deciding whether or not to provide some
service, or the level of service to be provided.
However, rDNS (or the lack thereof) SHOULD NOT be used as
the only source of information when making decisions of
this sort.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ 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>.