On 16 Jan 2007, at 23:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear colleagues, In http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00066.html Brett Carr suggested that some additional text noting that some RIRs have policies encouraging reverse mapping should be added to the reverse-mapping-considerations draft. I propose the following, which I think responds to Brett's request and still avoids the objection Joe Abley raised, that lameness checking should not be documented here. In section 2, I propose to add one sentence: Each RIR has its own policy for requirements for reverse-mapping maintenance; these policies may change from time to time. Some RIRs have policies which actively encourage reverse mapping. In section 4.1, I propose to add a phrase: It is desirable that Regional Registries and any Local Registries to whom they delegate encourage, or continue to encourage, reverse mappings. If you have any comments or objections about these changes before I alter the draft, I would appreciate hearing them. Best regards, A
Thanks Andrew that satisfies my concerns and comments. Regards Brett -- Brett Carr Manager -- DNS Services Group RIPE Network Coordination Centre Amsterdam _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
