On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:40:31PM -0400,
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
I'd appreciate it if you took Paul's comments a lot more seriously
and looked at whether the dnsop view on this issue extends to other
parts of the ietf. To the extent that it does not, please engage in
a discussion designed to build consensus rather than assertions that
someone who disagrees with you is naive.
OK, since I agree with Joao Damas on this point, let me rephrase it
(again) without harsh words.
Everyone took Paul Hoffman's and John Klensin's comments
seriously. But these comments have a big flaw, they jump from the
(legitimate) use case to a specific (and bad) solution. John Klensin's
message wasted many bytes describing the (well known) problem instead
of trying to see if the current I-D properly describes the solutions.
Everyone agrees that there is a very real and very legitimate use case
for roaming users to *not* use the default DNS resolver of the current
access point (see RFC 4925, section 2.5.2 for a typical reason).
But suggesting ORNS (Open Recursive Name Servers) for the solution to
this issue is, indeed, a bad idea (do note I did not say the N word),
for the reasons explained in
draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-04.txt (reflections attack).
There are other solutions to this issue and lists have already been
given in this thread *and* in the I-D we discuss. These solutions are
TSIG, local caching resolvers and VPN. May be there is an editorial
problem if they are not well explained but the I-D does completely
cover the issue of romaing users.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf