Hi Dean, On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:13:02PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Hmm. So, the word change had nothing to do with security. The draft and > its advocates _do_ still assert that there is security in matching > forward/reverse. As one of the editors of the draft, I would very much appreciate quotes from the text to back up your claim of what it is asserting. I don't believe the draft says what you claim; indeed, I think that statements in sections 3.2, 4.2, 4.3, and 5 are pretty clear. If you are unwilling to provide evidence that the document says what you claim it does, I can see no reason to take seriously your objections: they appear to be based on either an incomplete reading of the text, a complete misunderstanding of it, or a refusal to address the complete text. If, on the other hand, you provide such evidence, I am more than happy to attempt to address your concerns. Best regards, 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
