Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
 Peter Koch <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> a working group last call on
> 
> 	"Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> 	draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt

I've read and reviewed
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 and, basically,
this document is OK for its intended status.

I find it succeeds in the very delicate balance between two extremes,
mFrom [e-mail]  Wed Mar 26 07:25:55 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19E828C621;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.568
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-0.481, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id CNb0FHb2Xnwg; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDB03A6C2F;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4512E28C434
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id DgMWpK1kV7nY for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0598428C150
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 362421C014B
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:22:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163])
	by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311741C0147
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:22:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69])
	by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E91858EBB8
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:22:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:22:52 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse
	Mapping"
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======03303495="
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
 Peter Koch <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> a working group last call on
> 
> 	"Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> 	draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt

I've read and reviewed
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06 and, basically,
this document is OK for its intended status.

I find it succeeds in the very delicate balance between two extremes,
making PTR mandatory and claiming they are useless. Its general
approach (PTR are useful and should be added but should not be relied
on) seems a realistic one to me.

I also appreciate that it introduces a much needed terminology, both
rigorous and non pejorative, to talk about things like "matching
reverse data".

No editorial comments.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop