On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a > forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the > above sentence of Section 4.2? Right, it is not. > > > or something else? In either case, does this mean we don't have to > > > provide reverse mappings for addresses that are NOT referenced in a > > > forward mapping? > > > > No. We added this text exactly to address your previous objection > > that the text appeared to be requiring that every IP address anybody > > uses has to have a reverse map, which is absurd since every IP address > > in use doesn't need to have a forward map. > > I'm still not sure...The "No" seems to say this temporary address is > still covered by this sentence, but the following sentence seems to > indicate the opposite. Sorry, I see the problem now with my response. No, the temporary address does not need to have a reverse mapping, for exactly the same reason that it does not need a forward one. I will attempt to come up with a sentence that makes this clearer, given that it obviously isn't so far. 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
