ebersman> IPv6 is still in early adoption for broad general use and we ebersman> don't know what plans folks have for requiring PTRs.
TLemon> I apologize for picking and choosing from your response, but I TLemon> think this sums it up perfectly: if we do not yet know what TLemon> plans they have, then we need not care. [...] TLemon> So if e.g. Comcast were coming to us right now and saying "we're TLemon> getting a lot of phone calls because of foo," then we could talk TLemon> about foo. Comcast (or any large company/provider) does not move nimbly. The IETF does not move nimbly. Vendors do not implement what the IETF specifies energetically without beating/cash. I'm sympathetic to the idea that I should avoid borrowing trouble. However, I'd say that looking ahead and trying to be prepared for things that seem likely is not borrowing trouble; it's being prepared. If I wait until I have screaming customers, I have months and months of hell before I have any solution. Hence why I'm suggesting that we document v4 PTR usage and make recommendations on what we think are appropriate usage. If we can get a better idea of what bad ideas are being done now and try to folks to not do this, then we can indeed maintain the pleasant status quo in v6 PTRs. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
