Hi Dean,
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:11:15AM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On January 8, 2007, I posted a list of examples of published
> informational RFCs that include this language. That demonstrates that
> RFC2119 language is allowed in informational RFC's.
In my view, it is not completely re
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:52:45PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > I asked this before and got no answer. RFC2119 itself gives some
> > guidance:
>
> I don't think that's exactly true. I pointed out that, as far as I
> know, this document is inten
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:52:45PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> I asked this before and got no answer. RFC2119 itself gives some
> guidance:
I don't think that's exactly true. I pointed out that, as far as I
know, this document is intended to be an informational document, which
means that it wi
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > Basically, many people have greatly misunderstood this document,
>
> That people have misunderstood the document is your assertion, which
> may or may not be true. That people agree that using in-ad
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:52:45 -0500 (EST) Dean wrote:
DA> As an exercise, try to show
DA> that Administrator A, acting as Story described, has acted unreasonably
DA> (as Lemon asserted) when Administrator A can quote the text of this
DA> draft in his defense.
Let's do two exercises. Given a docume
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:43:18 -0500,
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe that the draft as it stands is consistent with the second
> view, and that it expresses a view that is contrary to the first
> view. In other words, the draft as written says, I think, that
> adm
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:00:40PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> We have been discussing this draft for a long
> time. It's a draft that I think adds value as it is. We do not
> need to keep discussing it for another two years.
Agreed. Let's ship.
-- Andras Salamon [EMAIL P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Completely concur with you here, Ted.
- - ferg
- -- Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Basically, many people have greatly misunderstood this document,
That people have misunderstood the docu
On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
Basically, many people have greatly misunderstood this document,
That people have misunderstood the document is your assertion, which
may or may not be true. That people agree that using in-addr for
security is clearly true, as your quota
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 19:50 -0500 2/14/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> >I am not declaring a consensus. I am stating, based on the history of
> >discussion the various drafts, that most people agree with my views on
> >this topic in contrast to, for example, Mr. Story's views
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This is a DNSOP draft, so I don't think we *can* use MUST NOT.
I asked this before and got no answer. RFC2119 itself gives some
guidance:
"6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
"Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
At 19:50 -0500 2/14/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
I am not declaring a consensus. I am stating, based on the history of
discussion the various drafts, that most people agree with my views on
this topic in contrast to, for example, Mr. Story's views. If anything,
I am asking for a consensus call on t
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Based on what information are you concluding that "most people on the
> Working Group" are in agreement with what you have said/written?
>
> I did not ask whether you were right or wrong on what the group
> thinks.
Oh. That is what I answered. My mi
At 0:43 -0500 2/14/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
How did you come to the conclusion that "most people on the Working
Group agree with" you on this? I point out that you say "most
people."
The past history of this document shows that most people do not
> I think the history of discussion of this document shows that most
> people here agree with the following three statements:
>
> 1 DNS PTR records are entirely optional, and MUST NOT be assumed to
>exist. Software MUST NOT fail or incur delay as a result of the non-
>existance of PTR r
On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
1 DNS PTR records are entirely optional, and MUST NOT be assumed to
exist. Software MUST NOT fail or incur delay as a result of the
non-
existance of PTR records.
2 Unauthenticated DNS MUST NOT be relied on for security or trust
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 14:33 -0500 2/13/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> >draft, but that text was refused by the author. I think most people on
> >the Working Group agree with the statements in my proposed text.
>
> Dean,
>
> How did you come to the conclusion that "most peo
On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said it was of no use for decision
making about some other site.
Excellent, then we're all in agreement, and the draft can advance as
written.
___
DNSOP mailing
I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said it was of no use for decision
making about some other site.
--Dean
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The reverse mapping tree of Site B is specifically of 'no utility', as
> > distinguished from 'no real utility', to administr
At 14:33 -0500 2/13/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
draft, but that text was refused by the author. I think most people on
the Working Group agree with the statements in my proposed text.
Dean,
How did you come to the conclusion that "most people on the Working
Group agree with" you on this? I poi
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:33:33PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> encourage that view. The draft wording in Section 4 is vague, but can
> be read to encourage that view. I've given text to disambiguate the
> draft, but that text was refused by the author. I think most people on
> the Working Gr
> The reverse mapping tree of Site B is specifically of 'no utility', as
> distinguished from 'no real utility', to administrator A for making
> _decisions_ about Site B. The mapping tree of Site B is only useful to
> Site _B_.
You have claimed this many times before, and you can continue to clai
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > The first view is that reverse mappings provide no information of any
> > utility whatsoever. There is no reason ever to use them except for
> > convenience; certainly, one should never make any decisions on the
> > basis of information inc
On Feb 6, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your careful reading and measured comments. Thanks also
for the suggested text.
Before I deal with some of the issues you raise in your posting, I
want to request some feedback from the wider group on what is clearly
the centr
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Ted Lemon wrote:
> To me, that is the sole use of reverse lookups. It is useful, and it's good
> if people populate the reverse tree as a habit because it helps in this way.
> But it is entirely correct to say that using the contents of the reverse tree
> to make automatic d
On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Robert Story wrote:
You are quite right, however, that I would be daft to have a firewall
rule to a control port of a router that looked like 'good-guy.*
ALLOW'.
But that doesn't mean that the first use is unreasonable.
Actually, I would argue that the first use *
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:48:52 -0500 (EST) Dean wrote:
DA> It is never reasonable to describe unreasonable behavior as somehow
DA> reasonable.
But reason itself is subjective. What's perfectly reasonable to one is
utterly insane to another.
DA> "Reasonable" decisions are well-founded on the basis
--On tisdag, tisdag 6 feb 2007 09.43.18 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to know whether people think that is a reasonable thing to
> say. If the answer is, "No," then I'm not sure what we can say about
> reverse mappings at all.
I think the draft is a good compromise
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:43:18 -0500 Andrew wrote:
> AS> [...] In other words, the draft as written says, I think, that
> AS> administrator of site A is perfectly entitled to make decisions about
> AS> site B on the basis of reverse mappings, _but_, the administrator of
> AS> site A is cautioned th
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:43:18 -0500 Andrew wrote:
AS> [...] In other words, the draft as written says, I think, that
AS> administrator of site A is perfectly entitled to make decisions about
AS> site B on the basis of reverse mappings, _but_, the administrator of
AS> site A is cautioned that there a
Hi,
Thanks for your careful reading and measured comments. Thanks also
for the suggested text.
Before I deal with some of the issues you raise in your posting, I
want to request some feedback from the wider group on what is clearly
the central question in this discussion. I'd like to get a gene
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:10:46 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Dean Anderson argued that a proposed text change he offered be
>> included instead of some language that is already in
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-01.txt. His argument
>> is that his
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:13:56 -0500,
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00062.html
> Dean Anderson argued that a proposed text change he offered be
> included instead of some language that is already in
> draft-ietf-dnsop
Dear colleagues,
In
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00062.html
Dean Anderson argued that a proposed text change he offered be
included instead of some language that is already in
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-01.txt. His argument
is that his proposed te
34 matches
Mail list logo
