To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Andras Salamon <andras@dns.net>
Date:
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:29:00 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<5.2.0.9.2.20030410191637.02a9e9b8@mail.amaranth.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 07:22:14PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote: > The point is to: > a) instruct application writers that Best Current Practice is to NOT rely > on INADDR as a means of "authentication" and > > b) instruct Network Operators that Best Current Practice is to implement > and provide INADDR. This is a nice crisp way to summarise the draft. In an IN-ADDR context, this is just a restatement of the usual `conservative in generation, liberal in acceptance' credo of the IETF, so I don't think one can disagree with it without also disagreeing with the basic principles of the IETF. It would be useful to emphasize this specific wording in the draft, perhaps in the abstract or as a preamble to section 4. -- Andras Salamon andras@dns.net #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.