On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Alain Durand
wrote:
>
> 3) There is another solution, that is do nothing, i.e. Do NOT populate the
> reverse tree.
>Probably ISPs on that path would like to see an update to RFC1033 &
> RFC1912 to
>explicitly say that the PTR record requirement is relaxed
Hi Lee Howard,
Here are my comments on the draft:
Section 1. What exactly is the reference to [RFC1033] for? I can't see any
of the text in this sentence in RFC1033.
Section 1.2 I don't see prefix delegation being mentioned in this
section and I think it should. If an ISP (perhaps wireless) just
>Looking for a few folks to do a close read. Send notes to the list, and
>I'll make necessary revisions. If it's baked, I think there's consensus.
I read through it. It's basically fine but of course here are a few
suggestions.
I'd redo sec 1.2 to make it clearer what the serious problems are.
Lee,
I will read through this in the next day or so.
Thanks,
Sean
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>
> There's been no discussion since this revision.
> The Chairs have asked for a couple of reviews. I've asked a couple of
> folks, but haven't had any response.
>
> Looking fo
Commenting on an old draft I had worked/started with Lee on many years
ago!
1) The intro should make it clear that this document DOES NOT recommend
any solutions, it just describe the trade-offs. In fact, none of the
solutions are really good.
2) there should be a longer discussion of hosts usin
Hi Lee,
I will review.
Thanks, Stephan
> -Original Message-
> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 6:47 AM
> To: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: [DNSOP] draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-07.txt
>
> There's bee
There's been no discussion since this revision.
The Chairs have asked for a couple of reviews. I've asked a couple of
folks, but haven't had any response.
Looking for a few folks to do a close read. Send notes to the list, and
I'll make necessary revisions. If it's baked, I think there's consensus
