Hello, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come back to this. I have had a hard time coming up with a proposed alteration that addresses exactly your point.
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:18:27PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > A. it's unfair. If this is based on the spirit of "reciprocity" > (referring to Bill), which I'd respect, IMO it should be a fair > deal. It's not very fair to me to request someone to do something > while just encouraging others to think about it (even if > carefully). And, as I mentioned in the previous message, I'm > not just ethically complaining about it; I'm afraid the unbalanced > fairness will worsen poor interoperability. If I understand this and your other messages correctly, one of the most irritating parts of the current text is this, in section 4.4: Site administrators are encouraged to think carefully before adopting any test of reverse delegation, particularly when that test is intended to improve security. The use of reverse mapping does not usually improve security, and should not be a default policy. What if it were changed to say instead the following: Site administrators are encouraged to think carefully and sceptically before adopting any test of reverse delegation, and to minimise such tests -- particularly when that test is intended to improve security. The use of reverse mapping does not usually improve security, and should not be a default policy. The additional text provides a discouragement of the practice that is, I think, roughly as strong as the encouragement to provide reverse mapping. Would this alteration address your concern? I have opened issue 22 for this. A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
