Point of order, please
It seems that WG co-chair has begun to use an email address that is
defaming Av8 Internet, Inc by returning business email to users of Av8
Internet claiming that Av8 Internet has hijacked some address space.
Av8 Internet hereby demands that the IETF immediately end this behavior
and halt the defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc by IETF representatives.
IETF representatives must use email addresses that are not configured for
defamation of Av8 Internet, Inc.
Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:23 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)cirrus(_dot_)av8(_dot_)net>
To: dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com
Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
The original message was received at Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400
from cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<sra(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>
(reason: 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using
dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See:
http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx-1.isc.org.:
DATA
<<< 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66] blocked using
dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See:
http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66
550 5.1.1 <sra(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>... User unknown
<<< 554 Error: no valid recipients
Reporting-MTA: dns; cirrus.av8.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; cirrus.av8.net
Arrival-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400
Final-Recipient: RFC822; sra@isc.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.3
Remote-MTA: DNS; mx-1.isc.org
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 553 Service unavailable; Client host [130.105.36.66]
blocked using dnsbl.sorbs.net; Hijacked/Disused Netblock See:
http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:20 -0400
--- Begin Message ---
I think it is a good idea too, but I don't see why it needs an RFC. It is
purely administrative function in a nameserver to configure it not go give
out certain data to requests from, say, certain IP ranges. The issues of
'how it works' and what features, administrative syntax, etc seem to me to
be as proprietary as the server configuration file.
Indeed, it should be easy for some nameservers (powerDNS comes to mind)
to do this now. But it doesn't change the protocol, it just changes the
administration and operation of the server.
--Dean
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Rob Austein wrote:
At Thu, 06 May 2004 17:26:34 +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
could you tell me what happened to
draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt? it has been expired
for some time now. i think it is a good document...
I thought it was useful too. If I recall the history of this one
correctly, it was a WG document which a number of people liked, but
the WG ratholed discussing how many angels can dance on the word
"unreachable", why firewalls are an offense before God, Man, and Small
Furry Creature From Alpha Centauri, and other nonterminating topics.
The author, not being totally out of his mind, eventually found
something more productive to do with his time.
This document is not on the WG's current charter, because the last
time we asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening. Absent
somebody willing to work on it, there is no point in asking our ADs to
let us put it back on the charter.
So: who cares about bringing this one back enough to work on it?
Given what happened the last time that I foolishly asserted from
memory that an author had given up on a DNSOP WG doc, let me phrase
this as a two part question:
a) Is the author interested in bringing back this document? If so, he
of course has dibs.
b) Otherwise, is there somebody else who would be interested in
picking up the pen?
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
--- End Message ---