Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:34:29PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:

> > address.  So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a
> > forward mapping".  Does this mean this address is not covered by the
> > above sentence of Section 4.2?

[. . .]

> > still covered by this sentence, but the following sentence seems to
> > indicate the opposite.
> 
> Sorry, I see the problem now with my response.  No, the temporary
> address does not need to have a reverse mapping, for exactly the same
> reason that it does not need a forward one.
> 
> I will attempt to come up with a sentence that makes this clearer,
> given that it obviously isn't so far.

I have attempted to address this problem by changing the text from

   Unless there are strong counter-considerations, such as a high
   probability of forcing large numbers of queries to use TCP, IP
   addresses in use within a range and referenced in a forward mapping
   should have a reverse mapping.

to

   Unless there are strong counter-considerations, such as a high
   probability of forcing large numbers of queries to use TCP, IP
   addresses both in use within a range, and referenced in a forward
   mapping, should have a reverse mapping.

Does this address the concern?

I put this into the tracker as issue 21.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
[phone] x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop