>John is correct there. This draft appears to solve a marginal problem, while >creating a huge privacy issues. In fact, I could not find any privacy >consideration in the text, while provisions such are placing a user name and >location in a PTR record are really privacy hostile. I think the authors >should seriously look at the privacy issues and rewrite the draft before it >progresses any further.
The author is Lee Howard, who works for a large cable ISP. Perhaps he could just tell us what the motivation for the document is. It also occurs to me that it'd be worth pointing out that contexts matter. For example, since my hosting provider doesn't handle v6 yet, I have the usual tunneled /64 from HE. They delegate the rDNS to me, I configure servers with fixed addresses and fixed rDNS and it works fine. That's a reasonable scenario (with or without the tunnel) for hosting customers. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
