Subject: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations: ambiguity?

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:13:56 -0500

Dear colleagues,

In 

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00062.html

Dean Anderson argued that a proposed text change he offered be
included instead of some language that is already in
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-01.txt.  His argument
is that his proposed text "is clear and specific, and it resolves the
ambiguity in your descriptions."

I would like to defer to the group on this question.  I am not so far
convinced that Dean's formulation is clearer, more specific, or less
ambiguous than the language that is in the draft at present, but I
would like to hear an argument from anyone other than Dean who thinks
it is.  If no such argument is forthcoming, then I plan to leave
alone the language in the draft about the implications of relying on
the reverse tree for security.

For reference, in case people want to look at this some more, I
believe the entire thread on that topic starts here:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00042.html

Best regards,
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 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop