On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
At the risk of hijacking the thread, is this draft considered to be of importance outside of SORBS' domain at all? When handling a /24 that ended up on the DUL -- I feel this thread's pain -- I made the case that this draft expired years ago by the book and never got any further. The DUL companies like SORBS, Trend Micro, et. al. all point to this document as justification for their practices, however; wouldn't that be considered violating it, given the preamble on page 1? The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast address is a residential customer with a modem, forcing those with allocations to prove that they are not residentially allocated rather than the other way around?" If it remains the magic document to get SORBS to pay attention to you, and nothing more, that would be ideal. JS