Subject: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:50:02 -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		: Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
	Author(s)	: D. Senie, A. Sullivan
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt
	Pages		: 12
	Date		: 2007-2-26
	
Mapping of addresses to names is a feature of DNS.  Many sites
   implement it, many others do not.  Some applications attempt to use
   it as a part of a security strategy.  This document outlines what
   should be taken into account when deciding whether to implement
   reverse mappings of addresses to names, and recommends that site
   administrators implement reverse mappings if there are no strong
   considerations against such mappings.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

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-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.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-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.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.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt

This is the version of the draft I said I'd be uploading.  

In this version, we have addressed the two remaining open issues as
we said we would:

1.  We closed issue 14, by removing emotionally charged terms like
    "accurate reverse".  Nobody replied to my question as to whether
    the proposed modifications would satisfy those objecting.  I
    believe that the document has been changed to address the
    substance of any objection here, though.

2.  We closed issue 15, by noting that some RIRs do in fact have
    policies encouraging the reverse mapping (i.e. along the lines I
    proposed in <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00072.html>.
    Brett Carr responded that this addressed his concerns.

In addition, we have made a few changes to try to address the issues
that came up in the thread starting at
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05370.html>.
Here are some highlights of how the document changed to try to address
the concerns raised in that thread:

1.  We adjusted the Abstract to make it more clear that there was a
    (qualified) recommendation in the document.

2.  We noted at the beginning of section 3 that that section's reports
    of what people are in fact doing should not be understood as
    either approbation or disapproval of the practice.

3.  We augumented the discussion of anti-spam systems to note that not
    all reverse mapping checks are binary checks: sometimes they are
    part of a scoring system.

4.  The discussion of the implications of relying on reverse tree
    checks in section 4 is made slightly stronger, and (in particular)
    has had its controversial nature emphasised.

I hope that these modifications address the remaining concerns of
those who previously objected.  In my opinion, this document says the
same thing as the previous version did, but if these modifications
make it clearer to some, then the goal of another round of work will
have been met.

Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500

Dear colleagues,

Best regards,
Andrew Sullivan