-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:00:24PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: >> RFC 4472 discusses all these issues. There's probably some material >> there that could be pulled here. > > Thanks, that's the reference I need. I don't know that the material > needs actually to be added; a reference ought to be enough, right? > Shane, would a note referring specifically to 7.2 through 7.5 of RFC > 4472 address your objections?
If reverse for IPv6 is useful to some people, then they will use it. Otherwise, they won't. I hate to be a weenie, but I think it is a mistake to encourage its use. The cost of maintaining IPv6 reverse information is significantly higher than in IPv4, and the benefits are even less. I'm sorry if this will make the IESG unhappy, but RFC 4472 only reinforces this. Does everyone on this list disagree with me? - -- Shane -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFPm5/MsfZxBO4kbQRAn2mAKDoPFIEfGd+V0Ij+OsEmIpAdfRQpACeKjmC y1k3EHb0FBP4UMTdrzpLhyA= =j4iQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
