On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:28:13PM -0700, bill fumerola wrote:
> there were several issues opened when WGLC was made, i can't find
> where these were made to see if they've been addressed in the most
> recent draft. this was referred to as issue 20.
I didn't update the draft, because nobody (and
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> What happened to this draft? There have been a few comments, all of
> them positive (except the one from JINMEI Tatuya) and nothing was
> announced and the I-D tracker seems to indicate that the draft was not
> transferred to IE
Err, lets try to keep the facts straight: not all were positive. Besides
JINMEI Tatuya, my evaluation was also very much a thumbs down.
If this document is/was approved, I will probably file an appeal with
the IESG, and a place a discrediting page on IETF-watch. If anyone wants
to join me in the a
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
> a working group last call on
>
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:55:04AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Given the discussion later in this thread, the definitions seem still
> to need more work. I'll try to put final proposed text together.
> I've opened issue 20 for this.
On the basis of the text in the thread, I have put the
Dear colleagues,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:34:29PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a
> > forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the
Hello, again,
Thanks for the detailed response. I now understand what I was
concerned about more clearly, and hopefully I can be clearer on that
point this time.
At Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:42:34 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a meta (and most substantial) level, this versi
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:34:29 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > or something else? In either case, does this mean we don't have to
> > > > provide reverse mappings for addresses that are NOT referenced in a
> > > > forward mapping?
> > >
> > > No. We added this text exactl
I have read this document and have no objection to its publication.
That said, I share Jinmei's concern that the recommendation against
depending on reverse mapping is too weak in the context of the rest of
the document. I'm in favor of much stronger language saying "don't
depend on reverse ma
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
> > answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: "why *should
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a
> forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the
> above sentence of Section 4.2?
Right, it is not.
> > > or something else? In eithe
(My first attempt was moderated due to from address mismatch, so I'm
resending it fixing the address. Sorry for the duplicate)
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a m
On 1 Apr 2008, at 16:36 , Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:28AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
>> Multiple PTR records can be stored in a single PTR RRset. If a
>> device at an IP address (v4 or v6) has multiple identities with
>> domain names, it would be good to have a PTR
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I'm inclined to add this text. I'd like additional expressions of
> support (or edits, or whatever) from the WG to confirm my inclination.
I agree that it's worth mentioning.
___
DNSOP mailing list
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:28AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Multiple PTR records can be stored in a single PTR RRset. If a
> device at an IP address (v4 or v6) has multiple identities with
> domain names, it would be good to have a PTR for each. However, this
> is not al
At 7:55 +1100 4/1/08, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Multiple PTR records scale worse than multiple A records.
That sentence is hard to parse.
I looked at the draft again and this thread.
The issue is not clear. Yes, you can have multiple PTR records.
Yes, there is a limit on how many records of
Mark,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 07:55:26AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's not uncommon for there to be too many PTR records to
> cause a problem especially when you start advocating that
> each address records needs a corresponding PTR record. The
> only reason we don't
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 06:34:38AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Multiple PTR records do not scale.
>
> what does that mean Mark?
>
> why does "Multiple A records" scale and not others?
> is this a DNS protocol issue or an implementation artifact?
Mul
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 06:34:38AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Multiple PTR records do not scale.
what does that mean Mark?
why does "Multiple A records" scale and not others?
is this a DNS protocol issue or an implementation artifact?
> Today we
> At 23:17 + 3/29/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I'm going to ask this question here too.. are we talking about the DNS
> >or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?
>
> I think that this is the important question when it comes to know
> what to write.
>
> A
At 23:17 + 3/29/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm going to ask this question here too.. are we talking about the DNS
>or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?
I think that this is the important question when it comes to know
what to write.
As far as DNS is c
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:47:29PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>Starting from a given IPv4 address (possibly the result of a query
>for an A RR), the term "existing reverse data" means that a query for
>.in-addr.arpa. type PTR results in a response
>other than Name E
Hello,
Thank you for your detailed comments. I have some additional
questions and remarks below.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:17PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
> answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: "why
I'm going to ask this question here too.. are we talking about the DNS
or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?
i see this draft in the context of the historical DNS ... it is a mapping
service, a name to an address AND an address to a name. the mapping service
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:28:17 -0700 JINMEI wrote:
JT/> At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
JT/> Section 3.2
JT/>
JT/>Reports from operators suggest that scoring mail on the basis of
JT/>missing or non-matching reverse mapping remains an imperfect but
JT/>useful measure of the likelihood
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I received some time ago some comments off-list on the reverse-mapping
> considerations document. I attempted unsuccessfully to convince the
> reviewer to send his substantive comments to the WG list, but he did
> not feel comfortable with that. (He
Dear colleagues,
I received some time ago some comments off-list on the reverse-mapping
considerations document. I attempted unsuccessfully to convince the
reviewer to send his substantive comments to the WG list, but he did
not feel comfortable with that. (He also provided a number of helpful
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
> Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
>> a working group last call on
>>
>> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
>> draft-i
At Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (EDT),
Paul Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think this definition is 100% appropriate. Consider the case
> > where a PTR RR is not provided for .in-addr.arpa
> > but some other type of RR (e.g. TXT) is. Then the response to the PTR
> > query won'
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
> Here are my minor comments on the draft:
>
> 1. In Section 1.2
>
>Starting from a given IPv4 address (possibly the result of a query
>for an A RR), the term "existing reverse data" means that a query for
>.in-addr.arpa. type PTR result
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
> a working group last call on
>
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
> a working group last call on
>
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100, Peter Koch wrote:
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
I have reviewed the document and believe it presents the current
network situation in a balanced way. Its suggesti
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> a working group last call on
>
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
I've read and reviewed
d
I oppose this document. I won't go into details since none of my
objections have ever been addressed, other than to say "We addressed
your objection" with a frivolous change or no change at all. Reposting
the details seems an utter waste of time.
If this document is eventually approved by the WG,
Peter Koch wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
> a working group last call on
>
> "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
>
> ending Friday, 2008-04-04, 18:00
Dear WG,
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
"Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
ending Friday, 2008-04-04, 18:00 UTC.
The document is aimed a
37 matches
Mail list logo
