Subject: [dnsop] Suggestions for a new RFC

From: Matthew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:14:55 +1100

All,

My apologies if this is off topic (please let me know if it is).

Many of you may know me from the SORBS anti-spam list, and whilst you may or not 
agree with me or SORBS as a service please do not let that affect this 
issue/proposal.

I have been working on a draft RFC which is currently informational, and 
possibly should be destined for the BCP track.  For that reason I am putting it 
forward for peer review and welcome any comments before posting it to the RFC 
Editor/IETF.

The draft concerns itself purely with generic naming scheme and avoids 'MUST' 
where possible.  It is meant for suggesting a common scheme and providing future 
direction rather than changing existing naming schemes of ISPs (except where 
they are un-necessarily ambiguous).

The purpose is to make the lives of mail administrators and abuse trackers 
(including, but not limited to, SORBS) a lot easier by helping to identify the 
type of remote service being provided (dynamic/static hosts, business/home hosts 
etc).

The draft maybe reviewed at: 
http://www.au.sorbs.net/~matthew/dns-naming-rfc-draft.txt

Spelling corrections, grammatical corrections welcome to me personally.  Other 
comments about the content and format welcome to this list (if deemed on topic), 
directly to me, or via a mailing list setup for the drafting specifically. (I 
have a majordomo list available at: [email-masked] using 'subscribe 
rfc-discuss' in the body which has been used exclusively for discussing this draft.)

You attention and comments are welcome and I give my thanks in advance.

Regards,

Matthew Sullivan
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:24:52 +0100

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:14:55PM +1100,
 Matthew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> The purpose is to make the lives of mail administrators and abuse
> trackers (including, but not limited to, SORBS) a lot easier by
> helping to identify the type of remote service being provided
> (dynamic/static hosts, business/home hosts etc).

1) I fail to see what it brings FOR THE USER besides RFC 4084.

2) It does not really fit into the Internet, where the telephony-style
clear-cut separation between providers and consumers is common. The
Internet, on the other hand, is very diverse. The distinction between
"business" and "residential" is especially inappropriate. (Why not a
distinction between "Unix" and "Windows" consumers? *That* would be
useful!)

3) I do not see its use besides enabling stupid filtering to become
more common.

.

---

From: Matthew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:49:35 +1100

>1) I fail to see what it brings FOR THE USER besides RFC 4084.
Thank you for pointing me at that - I had not seen it before.

>distinction between "Unix" and "Windows" consumers? *That* would be
There is no reason why it cannot be extended - however there is some 
fundamental differences between business and residential, and the 
suggested RFC does nothing more than suggest a naming scheme for those 
who want to distinguish (eg Road Runner).  This is not an RFC to tell 
people how to setup rDNS, this is a RFC to suggest a common naming 
scheme if they wish to make the distinction

>3) I do not see its use besides enabling stupid filtering to become
...and you have a problem with network owners filtering incoming traffic 
as they see fit because....?  (perhaps the answer is off topic)... All 
this does is help network owners choose a common scheme so people who 
want to do 'stupid filtering' have the opportunity to be more accurate 
as to the filtering they want to do.  It should also make it easier in 
some cases (eg: a colleague as a list of dynamic hosts determined and 
identified by rDNS naming schemes - the list details over 31k different 
identifiers).

As I said in my original mail - I know some here will not agree with the 
idea, and I expect it - however some do agree and this is a RFC to 
*suggest* a common naming scheme for *generic* records.  I welcome 
comments on the content - thank you for those who have already, the lack 
of major response heartens me into the belief that either it is on 
target, or people are happy with the content, or they are not concerned 
with the content and therefore have not reviewed it...

Regards,

Matthew
.