On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:40:31PM -0400, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > I'd appreciate it if you took Paul's comments a lot more seriously > and looked at whether the dnsop view on this issue extends to other > parts of the ietf. To the extent that it does not, please engage in > a discussion designed to build consensus rather than assertions that > someone who disagrees with you is naive. OK, since I agree with Joao Damas on this point, let me rephrase it (again) without harsh words. Everyone took Paul Hoffman's and John Klensin's comments seriously. But these comments have a big flaw, they jump from the (legitimate) use case to a specific (and bad) solution. John Klensin's message wasted many bytes describing the (well known) problem instead of trying to see if the current I-D properly describes the solutions. Everyone agrees that there is a very real and very legitimate use case for roaming users to *not* use the default DNS resolver of the current access point (see RFC 4925, section 2.5.2 for a typical reason). But suggesting ORNS (Open Recursive Name Servers) for the solution to this issue is, indeed, a bad idea (do note I did not say the N word), for the reasons explained in draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-04.txt (reflections attack). There are other solutions to this issue and lists have already been given in this thread *and* in the I-D we discuss. These solutions are TSIG, local caching resolvers and VPN. May be there is an editorial problem if they are not well explained but the I-D does completely cover the issue of romaing users. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf