Issue 17: the term "in use" in section 4.2 is not clear.
Discussion: Section 4.2 talks about addresses "in use" in a range, but
does not address the case where a host has no name in a forward zone.
Therefore, either the term "in use" doesn't cover every address
actually in use, or else it imposes a new requirement -- that hosts
cannot be unnamed in some way.
Proposed resolution: The following text is proposed, replacing the
current text that starts the same way:
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. Those addresses not in
use, and those that are not valid for use (zeros or ones
broadcast addresses within a CIDR block) need not have
mappings, although it may be useful to indicate that a given
range is unassigned.
I would like to include this change in a -04 submission on 2007-06-28
unless there are any objections.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
