Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 02 May 2017 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6786A127B60 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=XZIVlrf9; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=QdMasSvy
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aXrpYpDkf4T for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C477C129418 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAF3BB834 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1493758815; bh=yx/VVTTl9ddnskdHN0aS8bXmnF8Gv0DxnQ4PcViKO2w=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=XZIVlrf9fhEYImHqyoZ8eI5pl3iCeZ2xjwXt7tO+Cf+U3O2g9ESj7SJnQGWaTFoNC d1G6rWaPUz0z7hvyYxiQk1C14PgKYQRL0SCle1el3o32KT/7G0JA59anKPrWXRUL4B iHTx2TDwhU6HXGl/TSM6th/0zbByfFrMv0AT4bsc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6N0dqrpGf2mh for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:00:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1493758810; bh=yx/VVTTl9ddnskdHN0aS8bXmnF8Gv0DxnQ4PcViKO2w=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QdMasSvyff+zbiEtOubfWS1mRb7/IeoeOzvqF9S9QNNS2q/BBAwZRqdmODzB1IMGl ADOEKrxJlvWTbY3jfOkrgrgxCdpqkLHEje7FC3WLYpF5cJQ22l52FIB2SGIsTTI2Hk SqRLIwsL63X2mDCZGudlQ8VYrhIjBbp4HmBBA5+0=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170502210009.fahwudu7ucaass2g@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <148960242305.14237.6433299035570274359@ietfa.amsl.com> <D4EF170B.700A9%lee@asgard.org> <m1coTAQ-0000EXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <D52E454B.7AA2D%lee@asgard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D52E454B.7AA2D%lee@asgard.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FmctanrrasBKdchMPtTBUXVs34c>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 21:03:08 -0000

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:03:15PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> >Do you have a reference for the following statement
> >Serving ads: "This host is probably in town.province."  An ISP that does
> >not
> >provide PTR records might affect somebody else's geolocation.
> 
> No. Given the privacy considerations, I¹ve changed the example from
> ³x.town.province² to ³string.region² and added privacy considerations. So
> I need to fix this text anyway.
> 
> 
> >
> >Extracting geo information from reverse DNS is very hard. As far as I
> >know,
> >geo location services for IPv4 mostly rely on other sources.
> 
> That¹s probably true. Given that I need to update it to match what it says
> in the Privacy Considerations section and the examples, should I just
> remove mention of geolocation? Or should I tweak it to match the rest, and
> add text saying, ³But reverse DNS is not a great source for geolocation
> information²?

For whatever it's worth, I know of one geolocation effort that uses
the names in the reverse as clues about geolocation improvement.  I am
not able to state who it is or how they use this, but I can testify
that it is in fact used that way.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com