IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 28 March 2008 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E2A3A7089; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPVjysTi5Txg; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBDC3A6DBB; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC4C3A68FC for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4BR62a9yQZ1T for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mon.jinmei.org (mon.jinmei.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1883A70BA for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from user-64-9-237-133.googlewifi.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:217:f2ff:fee0:a91f]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB5933C2E; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:16:47 -0700
Message-ID: <m2ej9ul9r4.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803281906500.17794@newtla.xelerance.com>
References: <20080314034500.GE7553@x27.adm.denic.de> <m2fxualb3y.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803281906500.17794@newtla.xelerance.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Cc: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

At Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (EDT),
Paul Wouters <paul@xelerance.com> wrote:

> > I don't think this definition is 100% appropriate.  Consider the case
> > where a PTR RR is not provided for <reversed-ip4-address>.in-addr.arpa
> > but some other type of RR (e.g. TXT) is.  Then the response to the PTR
> > query won't be a Name Error, but it wouldn't be reasonable to consider
> > it the existence of reverse data.  I'd suggest revising this to:
> >
> >    Starting from a given IPv4 address (possibly the result of a query
> >    for an A RR), the term "existing reverse data" means that a query for
> >    <reversed-ip4-address>.in-addr.arpa. type PTR results in a positive
> >    response (i.e,, one that contains a PTR RRset for the queried name
> >    in the answer section).
> 
> Would it contain these if classless reverse delegations (eg CNAME's) were
> used?

Good point, I guess the phrase "result in" would implicitly have the
implication, but we may have to revise it a bit like, e.g.,:

  "(i.e,, one that provides a PTR RRset corresponding to the IPv4
  address)".

at the risk of making the definition relatively ambiguous.

Or we could also remove the "i.e" part.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email