On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Paul Wouters <paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca> wrote:
In IPv4, the absence of a PTR record was taken as a spam signal,
together with all the other spam signals; in IPv6, they decided to just
say "no".
Which is stupid because many ISPs didn't run proper reverse for v6 and
couldn't delegate to their customers.
Which broke many small email servers
Upon which the ISPs started auto generating PTR records.
Upon which the anti spammers rejected auto generated PTR as valid and rebroke
the small email servers.
Upon which those mail systems just stopped using IPv6.
Upon which we all lost
What you are demonstrating is the need for a coordination body that:
1) Listens to all the stakeholders
2) Takes account of all the stakeholder concerns
3) Arrives at a consensus based on those concerns
4) Publishes them
The problem with the approach here that a lot of people take here is
that they are not interested in step 1 or 2. They treat the IETF
process as a means to get the outcome THEY desire and tough luck to
anyone else who isn't there.
If you want to arrive at an approach that sticks, you have to look at
the interests of all the stakeholders, even the ones that don't bother
to show up.