Dear colleagues,
I received some time ago some comments off-list on the reverse-mapping
considerations document. I attempted unsuccessfully to convince the
reviewer to send his substantive comments to the WG list, but he did
not feel comfortable with that. (He also provided a number of helpful
editorial comments, which we incorporated in the most recent version
of the draft.)
I here will attempt to summarize my understanding of his comments.
The reviewer takes exception to the suggestion that delegations in the
forward zone should ideally have an entry in the reverse zone too.
Instead, he suggests, that there be _at least one_ matching reverse;
e.g.,
A (PTR (ipaddr)) == ipaddr
or A (PTR (A (fqdn))) == A (fqdn)
but not many more. The reviewer argues that the draft should in fact
argue against adding multiple ("more than a handful") PTR(s) for a
given address.
It was our (the editors') impression that the above is consistebt with
what the draft actually says, but that it has a different emphasis.
That is, we think the draft says that existing reverse data is
generally good, and matching reverse is nice to have, but that you
shouldn't take this too far. We decided not to try to change this in
the draft on the grounds of the support we had so far, but we're
certainly open to changes if others think this message is garbled in
the existing version of the draft.
I hope I've done justice to the reviewer's comments.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
