Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

2017-05-11 Thread 神明達哉
At Thu, 11 May 2017 06:57:51 -0400, tjw ietf wrote: > There was a lot of consensus during our last meeting in Chicago that this > should move forward, so it's time that we do so. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for: > draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements > > The

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread Paul Wouters
On Thu, 11 May 2017, tjw ietf wrote: This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname The draft is available here:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/ Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list,

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread tjw ietf
JINMEI I've noted your previous remarks as something I would take up with the authors. But thanks for the reminder. tim On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Mark Scholten wrote: > > From: tjw ietf [mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:56 > > > >

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread Mark Scholten
> From: tjw ietf [mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:56 > > This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread bert hubert
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:55:55AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote: > I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, > but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off > a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late). > > This starts a Call for

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello Jinmei, On 11 May 2017, at 19:12, 神明達哉 wrote: I support the adoption. I'm willing to review subsequent versions. Actually I've already reviewed the current version and provided comments: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg20130.html but as far as I remember I've not

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread John R Levine
You might want to talk to large providers that do v6 now. With only one exception I can think of, they have no plans to do synthesized v6 rDNS, and they routinely block port 25 from all their consumer networks. i'd like to meet your friends. but i'd also like them write an rfc about it.

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread Paul Vixie
John R Levine wrote: > You might want to talk to large providers that do v6 now. With only one > exception I can think of, they have no plans to do synthesized v6 rDNS, > and they routinely block port 25 from all their consumer networks. i'd like to meet your friends. but i'd also like them

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread John R Levine
What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail from IPv6 hosts too lame to set up rDNS? we will never know, because every v6 end system will have a ptr, either naturally, or machine-generated for it, because v6 providers will not want their rank-and-file v6 endsystems to be

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread Paul Vixie
John Levine wrote: In my experience, without reverse DNS it is essentially impossible to have mail delivered to the internet at large. >>> Yes. >> since this isn't an ideal or intended state of affairs, let's consider >> the size and shape of the box, not just what's in there. > >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread Bjørn Mork
"John Levine" writes: > What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail from IPv6 hosts > too lame to set up rDNS? The answer is pretty much the same as the answer to the question: "What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail?" Bjørn

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread 神明達哉
At Thu, 11 May 2017 06:55:55 -0400, tjw ietf wrote: > I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, > but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off > a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late). > > This

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

2017-05-11 Thread John Levine
In article <5908daf9.90...@redbarn.org> you write: >> behalf of pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote: >> >>> In my experience, without reverse DNS it is essentially impossible to have >>> mail delivered to the internet at large. >> >> Yes. > >since this isn't an ideal or intended state of affairs,

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread Job Snijders
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:55:55AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote: > This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by >

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

2017-05-11 Thread tjw ietf
There was a lot of consensus during our last meeting in Chicago that this should move forward, so it's time that we do so. This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements The draft is available here:

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

2017-05-11 Thread tjw ietf
I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late). This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname The draft is available here: