Subject: Re: the purpose of dnsop-reverse-mapping (Re: [dnsop] ISSUES:draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt)

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:39:53 -0500

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:43:05PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> regarding this document, I'd be confused here, and ask why this
> document the deployment of the reverse mappings.  

Thanks for this.  I think there is a third reason to add to your
list, though, and I wonder what you think of it:

C. Because the facility exists, and people are using it, so if you
   want to be fully interoperable with the rest of the Internet,
   you'd be better off maintaining the reverse mappings.

Would putting that clarification in (probably reworded slightly, but
I hope you get the drift) address your concern?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

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

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:31:43 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:43:05PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ wrote:

There are more reasons to have a proper reverse, which are missing from
in draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt which only
focussed on PTR and A records.

It does not take into account the use of SSHP (RFC-4255) and IPSECKEY
(RFC-4025) records. It also does not take into accout Opportunistic
Encryption (RFC-4322). Especially in combination with DNSSEC (deployed
for all of RIPE's reverse address space already)

There might also be various voip/enum related records that might benefit
from a working reverse.

Paul

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:16:07 -0500

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:19:16PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> 
> I'm afraid this version of draft does not fully address one
> fundamental issue. 

I have added this and the subsequent discussion as issue 13.  The
proposal I make is to produce a clearer motivation statement, and
include references to RFCs 4255, 4025, and 4322 (and maybe some
discussion of DNSSEC and ENUM).  

A

.