>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:13:56 -0500, >>>>> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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. It's difficult to answer the question with yes-or-no since the previous discussion seems to diverge, covering many subtle points, but I'm afraid I share with some of the concerns raised in the discussion. I've carefully reread every line of the 01 version, and found that my concerns are not really addressed (of course, I'm not claiming it must necessarily be addressed). Right now, I don't have time to provide further details in an e-mail message, but I'll post my own comments to the 01 version by early next week, which will probably be related to this issue. The bottom line is, however, that I very much appreciate the effort in this work, even though the resulting document after the discussion might not be satisfactory for me (I won't be surprised at the result since this document seems to contain many controversial points on a subtle balance of opinions). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
