On Sat, 1 Nov 2014, John Levine wrote:
I entirely agree ... the fact that reverse DNS works as a heuristic (and
not an especially key heuristic) for IPv4 is not a reason for the
considerable effort required to try and make it work as a an equally
flawed heuristic on IPv6.
There is a heuristic
There is a heuristic that says any host which is intended to act as a
server visible to hosts on the public Internet should have matching
forward and reverse DNS. (It does not say the converse; the presence
of DNS doesn't mean a host is good, the absence means it's bad.) This
seems to me to be
John Levine mailto:jo...@taugh.com
Saturday, November 01, 2014 1:51 PM
I entirely agree ... the fact that reverse DNS works as a heuristic (and
not an especially key heuristic) for IPv4 is not a reason for the
considerable effort required to try and make it work as a an equally
flawed
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is good to minimize disruption caused by broken DNSSEC domains,
for all the reasons listed in the document.
However, I also believe there is a second-order negative effect of
implementing NTAs as
vixie if there were an RFC (let's be charitable and assume it would
vixie have to be an FYI due to lack of consensus) that gave reasons why
vixie PTR's would be needed and reasons why the absence might be better
vixie (so, internet access vs. internet service), then that RFC might
vixie give our
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Brian Dickson
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is good to minimize disruption caused by broken DNSSEC domains,
for all the reasons listed in the
