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

[Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>]

Brad Knowles wrote:

> 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.

So, a little bogosity is fine, just don't go overboard (???)

Come on, let's not dance around the point here. Either reverse DNS is bogus or
it isn't. We should say what we mean and mean what we say. Dithering gets us
nowhere.


- Kevin



#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.