> I am told that draft has been revved again in response to discussion on > the list. > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05 > > Please direct your attention to the security considerations section. If > it turns out that informational documentation of the two RR-Type > assignments remains controversial, I will likely withdraw my sponsorship > of this draft. the addition of This document recommends that EUI-48 or EUI-64 addresses SHOULD NOT be published in the public DNS. alleviates my worst fears. though i wish it was a MUST NOT, i will not insist. thanks joe and joel. randy