Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 10:32:28AM -0800, Doug Otis wrote:
Note that there has been work in DNSOP suggesting that rejecting on
the failure of reverse DNS lookup is not always a good idea.
Just to be clear: I am not sure I agree with those who think reverse
DNS should not be maintained, but there were strong currents in the WG
that led to the text of that I-D as it stands. It isn't clear to me
where the I-D stands in its progression (if there is to be any) from
the WG, so I have no idea what the Chairs will say was consensus. But
there was a WGLC in which at least some people suggested the text of
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt still contained
too much endorsement of the reverse tree. My personal interpretation
of those remarks is that there will always be a hard core of operators
who regard the reverse tree as an insupportable burden (without
consideration for the v4/v6 differences).
I think it's hard to argue that it isn't a greater burden in ipv6,
whether it is insupportable is a question of degree... obviously one can
simply use wildcards in zones to generate responses whether tha produces
a level of congruence between forward and reverse or even any actual
meaning that's useful is another question entirely.
Ietf mailing list