> Issue 18: The draft should refer to RFC 1912
>
> Discussion: RFC 1912 suggests that every A record should have a
> corresponding PTR.
>
> Proposed resolution: add the following text to section 2, as a new
> paragraph, after "its use is codified in [RFC3596].":
>
> [RFC1912] suggests that it is an operational or
> configuration error not to have matching PTR and A records.
>
> Absent any objections, I plan to make this adjustment for a -04
> submission on 2007-06-28.
Every address should have a PTR which gives the cannonical name
of the host which in turn has a matching address record.
It is a bad idea to say for the to be a PTR for every ownername
of a address record. It doesn't take too many A records, which
all have the same address, before you exceed the DNS protocol
limits with multiple PTR records.
> 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
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
