Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt

[Peter Koch]

> And, yet again: I _really_ honestly want to know! I've been looking
> for this reason for _years_, and so far my logical brain is
> dissatisfied. I'm willing to accept going to a BCP if I hear many
> voices saying that my demands are too high, so please speak up,
> working group! :-)

I agree that the BCP should motivate, not just demand reverse mapping.
Two issues I mentioned in a private comment on an earlier version of this draft:

o One reason for not providing reverse mapping is lack of knowledge of the
  ``classless delegation'' technique, which should be referenced in the
  document. In addition, some DNS server software does or did make this
  job harder.

o Not providing reverse mapping increases the amount of DNS traffic and
  load on DNS servers, because negative responses are either not cached or
  cached for a shorter time than PTR answers. We're serving the reverse
  mapping for several /16 address ranges and see several peaks for non
  rev'mapped areas. Of course, this is not primarily a problem for end
  customers.

-Peter