Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

[Shane Kerr <[e-mail]>]

Stephane,

At 2016-04-29 10:58:50 +0200
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:50:42PM -0400,
>  Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote 
>  a message of 24 lines which said:
> 
> > This starts a Working Group Last Call  for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns  
> 
> Summary: I think it must *not* be published as it is.
> 
> The biggest problem is that it fails to explain why it is necessary to
> provide a PTR. RFC 1912, quoted, is just informational and its
> sentence "Every Internet-reachable host should have a name" does not
> use RFC 2119 terms. RFC 1912 was written in 1996 when one computer per
> home was already a lot! Now, every home has four or five connected
> machines and it will probably increase a lot in the next years. I see
> no point in giving a PTR to any Internet-connected printer or
> webcam. (And it raises privacy issues, see my last remark.)
> 
> It seems this document did not take into account the lessons from the
> failure of draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations (which is
> in the references but never mentioned in the draft, something that the
> RFC editor will complain about). Basically, it seems there is no
> consensus inside IETF about the PTR so this draft should be careful.

Disclaimer: Personally I think that the whole notion of reverse IP is
ridiculous, especially in IPv6. I proposed that we skip the whole
notion in IPv6, possibly providing some alternate, non-DNS, method to
get hostname from IPv6 addresses for the rare case where that is useful.

However, administrators seem to really like reverse DNS. I don't know
why. It's a mystery to me, but they do.


Having said all of that, I don't see any strong requirement that this
document provide motivation for reverse DNS solutions for IPv6. People
ask about the problem, and want solutions, and it would be good to have
a document to point them to with some help.

Cheers,

--
Shane