IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 06 November 2014 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614B81A88A6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:23:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
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 ihaZ1x9JyWJw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93D31A8896 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-67-188-0-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.0.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA6HNOqf050806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:23:25 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <545BAE86.4010606@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 09:23:18 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/33.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <20141101205101.66019.qmail@ary.lan> <54556D3B.4020505@redbarn.org> <CAJE_bqe5iRtRCj3eVC13LBk3PLPFQuO0zkfmYvS+MHdHwYQ+Kg@mail.gmail.com> <20141105185026.GZ30379@mx1.yitter.info> <545A8DA2.3090508@redbarn.org>
In-Reply-To: <545A8DA2.3090508@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L5D0fKiCWkBX8IMHkIM06gIMK3sl7GpEU"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iDk1q6SLFk-iwfWJCT38H_orTjc
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:23:38 -0000

On 11/5/14 12:50 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> 
>> Andrew Sullivan <mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
>> Wednesday, November 05, 2014 10:50 AM
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 10:19:59AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06
>> ...
>> ... I believed I had watered down the draft so thoroughly that it
>> would be impossible for anyone to disagree with it. I was evidently
>> wrong. If we're going to bring that thing back up (in any sense you
>> like), then I think it needs to get a spine. Perhaps also my
>> willingness to try to find consensus has declined in the intervening
>> years: I just don't think there _is_ a consensus on this.
> the lack of consensus means it can't be a proposed standard, not that it
> can't be an FYI, BCP or similar, right?

BCP requires consensus after a fashion very similar to a standards track
document.

something with no-consensus basis would probably go to the ISE. Some
that people do not oppose publication of even if they disagree with it
might be informational.

but this is all jail-house lawyering, if the w.g. can't build a
consensus then it doesn't advance as a w.g. document.

> 
> the fact of the network is, without a PTR you will have a hard time
> originating TCP/25. we should say that.
> 
> another fact is, not everyone who should be able to (non-maliciously)
> access your web service will have a PTR. we should say that, too.
> 
> those aren't opinions and they shouldn't be controversial.
> 
> -- 
> Paul Vixie
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email