Joe... To clarify... Client subnet is not what I an complaining about. It's
wide area rdns itself that I think is a bad idea. One reason wide area rdns is
a bad idea is that it needs client subnet options.
Centralized rdns is not necessary and it makes the internet brittle. Better
alternatives exist. The architecture of DNS assumes localized rdns. If we're
going to document client subnet then all that advice will have to go into it.
On May 7, 2014 7:15:04 PM CEST, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
>On 7 May 2014, at 13:12, P Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
>
>> Ouch. Well so if a large body of ietf participators think wide area
>rdns is a bad idea and that this option should never be recommended
>then we would presumably have to say so in the document which
>standardized the option. Strange.
>
>I think documenting a bad idea and including text that describes why it
>is bad is better than ignoring it.
>
>I'm not saying that I think edns-client-subnet is necessarily bad; I'm
>observing that others here believe it is. Even if we all thought it was
>definitively bad, given that it has been implemented I am still
>strongly in favour of documenting it.
>
>
>Joe
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
