Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:44:16 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Requiring DNS IN-ADDR Mapping
	Author(s)	: D. Senie
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 2003-3-28
	
Mapping of addresses to names has been a feature of DNS. Many sites,
implement it, many others don't. Some applications attempt to use it
as a part of a security strategy. The goal of this document is to
encourage proper deployment of address to name mappings, and provide
guidance for their use.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:34:35 -0500

In paragraph 2 the following is stated:

"ARIN's policy requires ISPs to maintain IN-ADDR for /16 or larger
allocations. For smaller allocations, ARIN can provide IN-ADDR for /24
and shorter prefixes."

The ARIN policy statement is:

"All ISPs receiving a /16 or larger block of space (>= 256 /24s) from
ARIN will be responsible for maintaining all IN-ADDR.ARPA domain records
for their respective customers. For blocks smaller than /16, ARIN can
maintain IN-ADDRs through the use of the SWIP template for reassignments
of /24 and shorter prefixes."

The policy does not require in-addr service.  What it means is that if
in-addr service is desired then the responsibility for allocations of
/16 or shorter prefixes is that of the ISP receiving the allocation.  If
the prefix is longer than a /16 and shorter than a /24, then ARIN will
provide the service if desired.

Ray

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <[email-masked]>.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:54:23 +0200

--On Monday, March 31, 2003 06:44:16 -0500 "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
> Operations Working Group of the IETF.
> 

This is a good draft. One thing might be desired, though:

Inclusion of a v6 section, or, at least, mentioning of the fact that 
v6 deserves reverse, too. If, of course, we think it should be there. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:48:12 -0500 (EST)

The goal of this draft is to dictate a change in policy at ARIN and other
registry's.  The authors know about that in-addr is not required. They are
trying to change that.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:49:40 -0500 (EST)

For the reasons just discussed under the subject titles

  Re: What problem were we trying to solve again? (was Re:
  Re: Radical Surgery proposal: stop doing reverse for IPv6,

this draft should be rejected.

However, if you want to continue discussing the topic of Reverse, I am
certainly willing.

		--Dean

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:46:24 -0500

> registry's.  The authors know about that in-addr is not required. They are

<hat wg-co-chair=on>

Dean,

Please cease and desist posting on this subject unless you have
something genuinely new to say and can refrain from ad homina such as
the above.  This is not a debating society; other people are entitled
to disagree with you, and ad homina are inappropriate in any case.

If this draft makes it as far as a last call and you still disagree
with it, you will be entitled to state your case against it again,
assuming you can do so politely.   Until then, please let other people
work on this.

--Rob

</hat>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:46 -0500 (EST)

Sorry. It seemed to me that Ray misunderstood the point of this draft.
Clearly, correcting the draft to state ARIN's present policy that in-addr
is not required, is not what the authors intend. Obviously, it contradicts
the title.

I don't seen an ad hominem in the statement you quote. I presume I am
allowed to disagree with others. Especially, since I am not alone in the
position.

Further, it seems to be an attempt to renew a debate that we've been
having for 10 days. You should chastise the author who brought up this old
topic, not the person who is pointing out that it is an old topic.

However, if it were a new issue, I should be allowed to state my
disagreements to it, and to help clarify its meaning and implications.

Do we make judgements now without debating the issues? Or am I only
allowed to comment on one topic?

		--Dean