Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:21:22PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out to me this morning a problem in what
> section 2.1 of the -04 draft says. Here's how it reads now:
[. . .]
As there have been no additional comments in this
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:33:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the comment!
> Starting from a given IPv4 address (probably 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
> t
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 25/07/2007 03:21:22:
>
> While we were talking about this issue again this evening, Stephane
> also kindly pointed out to me that the document uses the expression
> "reverse query" when a more appropriate expression would be "query for
> reverse data".
Dear colleagues,
Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out to me this morning a problem in what
section 2.1 of the -04 draft says. Here's how it reads now:
Since the list of trusted hosts was a simple list of hostnames or
addresses, an attacker could acquire access by intercepting the DNS
query f
