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

[Doug Barton <DougB@dougbarton.net>]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Daniel Senie wrote:

> What appears to be needed, if following my a & b above, is to strengthen
> the arguments on both sides, explaining at the same time why INADDR really
> SHOULD be implemented by network operators, and why application writers
> SHOULD NOT rely on this information.

I think this is getting closer to something reasonable, except that I'd
change the last bit to say, "and why all consumers of INADDR information
should be aware of the limitations of same."

We're making a big mistake if we assume that we can speak authoritatively
on the quality of all INADDR data on the net. I have a very high degree of
confidence in the quality of the INADDR information on the hundreds of
netblocks that I maintain because it's a priority in my enterprise. OTOH,
I have a high degree of skepticism for someone else's data, and I act
accordingly.

In the FreeBSD project we have a saying, "Tools, not policy." I think that
perspective is very valuable here as well.

Doug

-- 
I'm the kind of man a woman thinks she can change
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.