On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > The debate is over "the right answer" given for reverse DNS queries.
I don't think there is anywhere in the draft where anything says there is "the right answer" for reverse DNS queries. If you have found text that says that in the current draft, please point out exactly where it says that. I responded yesterday to your claim about this, pointing out that the text is at least supposed to say something rather different to that, and that I would value suggestions on how to make that intention clearer. Moreover, > The position of the "security/spam" crowd is that no reverse anwser is > wrong, > The opposing position is that any PTR answer is optional, I think you have a false dichotomy here. The draft is intended to say that on the whole, it is generally best if the reverse tree works, because the reverse tree can be useful in a number of cases. (I note that in your description, you have addressed not at all any of the discussion, contributed by Paul Wouters, of key-publishing cases, particularly in the presence of DNSSEC.) That said, there are nevertheless at least some cases where it is legitimate to decide that a reverse mapping for a given case is a bad idea. We have some examples in the doc. I would be happy to include more such examples if someone provided me with an argument that they exist. > PTR records are also more impractical in IPV6, certainly more expensive, I believe the document includes some discussion of these differences, and also points to some considerations about tools for reverse tree management under IPv6. If there is more you would like to add, please send some text. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
