At 13:15 -0500 1/4/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
address by the machine initiating the query". This incorrect assertion
is at the very heart of the mistaken uses of 'reverse DNS as security
mechanism'. The correct answer to "what is supposed to be seen" is
_site_ dependent. Those who think there i
Hi Dean,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 01:15:56PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> This is nearly a straight rehash of the ill-fated in-addr draft.
Since as a matter of history it's a revival of that draft under a
different filename (as some people objected to the "required"), that
shouldn't be too sur
On 4-Jan-2007, at 13:23, Dean Anderson wrote:
I noticed this with some other IETF archives:
The dnsop archive pages only go back to November 30, 2006. This is
true
for some other IETF working groups. (e.g. GROW)
Those are both lists which were recently moved from machines at the
Univers
On 4-Jan-2007, at 13:15, Dean Anderson wrote:
In general, the DNS response to a reverse map query for an address
ought to reflect what is supposed to be seen at the address by the
machine initiating the query.
There is no exact definition of "what is supposed to be seen at the
address
I noticed this with some other IETF archives:
The dnsop archive pages only go back to November 30, 2006. This is true
for some other IETF working groups. (e.g. GROW)
I notice that the IETF Trust creation document gives CNRI special access
to the ISOC/IETF archives.
Is it the case that the IETF i
This is nearly a straight rehash of the ill-fated in-addr draft. As
with that draft, there is a fundamental wrong assumption embedded in the
draft, as exemplified in this sentence of Section 4.1:
In general, the DNS response to a reverse map query for an address
ought to reflect what is
