Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
That will probably lead to people using the TLSA record as a pointer to
do not connect without TLS.
I wrote that requirement into my DANE for email drafts.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fanf-dane-smtp-04#section-3.2
You may remember this draft from a couple of years ago. People keep asking
me what a residential ISP should do for IPv6 PTR records, and I keep
repeating what's in the draft.
The intent is to document existing solutions, since prepopulating PTRs like
we did in IPv4 doesn't work. Last time I
On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org
wrote:
Since it's been
a while, and the operator community is still asking for guidance, I've
updated it, and would like a renewed review of it as an individual
submission (unless this WG or v6ops wants it).
The document looks pretty
On 2012-11-21 4:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
... Aside from this quibble, I think the document is useful and should
be published.
my quibble is different. ipv6 is bringing some tough love to the
consumer-facing edge. the fact that ISP's auto-populated the IPv4 PTR
tree made it impossible for mail
On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:07, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
network operators should provide PTR RR's for specific addresses which
have real names. the inability due to IPv6's richness of address space
to provide auto-naming for PTR's does not to me, a problem statement make.
+1
