Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 10:32:28AM -0800, Doug Otis wrote: >>> Note that there has been work in DNSOP suggesting that rejecting on >>> the failure of reverse DNS lookup is not always a good idea. >> Agreed. > > Just to be clear: I am not sure I agree with those who think reverse > DNS should not be maintained, but there were strong currents in the WG > that led to the text of that I-D as it stands. It isn't clear to me > where the I-D stands in its progression (if there is to be any) from > the WG, so I have no idea what the Chairs will say was consensus. But > there was a WGLC in which at least some people suggested the text of > draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt still contained > too much endorsement of the reverse tree. My personal interpretation > of those remarks is that there will always be a hard core of operators > who regard the reverse tree as an insupportable burden (without > consideration for the v4/v6 differences). I think it's hard to argue that it isn't a greater burden in ipv6, whether it is insupportable is a question of degree... obviously one can simply use wildcards in zones to generate responses whether tha produces a level of congruence between forward and reverse or even any actual meaning that's useful is another question entirely. > A > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf