Dear colleagues, In
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00062.html Dean Anderson argued that a proposed text change he offered be included instead of some language that is already in draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-01.txt. His argument is that his proposed text "is clear and specific, and it resolves the ambiguity in your descriptions." I would like to defer to the group on this question. I am not so far convinced that Dean's formulation is clearer, more specific, or less ambiguous than the language that is in the draft at present, but I would like to hear an argument from anyone other than Dean who thinks it is. If no such argument is forthcoming, then I plan to leave alone the language in the draft about the implications of relying on the reverse tree for security. For reference, in case people want to look at this some more, I believe the entire thread on that topic starts here: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00042.html 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
