IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Mon, 31 March 2008 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D727D28C355; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:17:41 -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 1828328C355 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Rd9UttAFX3hJ for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ogud.com (hlid.ogud.com [66.92.146.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0753A68CE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.68.58] (ns.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.6]) by ogud.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2VHHFuM004282; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:17:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240801c416cbfb5028@[10.31.68.58]>
In-Reply-To: <20080329231727.GA30381@vacation.karoshi.com.>
References: <20080314034500.GE7553@x27.adm.denic.de> <m2hceqlbzy.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <20080329182353.5d30ef3f@spx.vb.futz.org> <20080329231727.GA30381@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:17:11 -0400
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 10.20.30.6
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 23:17 +0000 3/29/08, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>I'm going to ask this question here too..  are we talking about the DNS
>or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?

I think that this is the important question when it comes to know 
what to write.

As far as DNS is concerned, "so what" if there are multiple PTR 
records, yadda, yadda, yadda.  It's nothing to the protocol.

I was made aware of the desire for limiting PTRs to 1 per address 
entry via traceroute.  What name should be printed in the one line 
traceroute gives a hop?

In general, that's the application's problem.  Apps that can't handle 
multiple PTRs are the problem to me.  (Why is is that weakly written 
apps point fingers at the DNS and blame troubles on DNS-being-DNS?)

Perhaps this document should tell apps writers what they can 
accomplish with multiple PTRs.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email