I have read this document and have no objection to its publication. That said, I share Jinmei's concern that the recommendation against depending on reverse mapping is too weak in the context of the rest of the document. I'm in favor of much stronger language saying "don't depend on reverse mapping being available".
While I appreciate the spirit of the text proposed by Ed Lewis, the below paragraph seems a bit confusing: >> The number of address records in an PTR set before tripping the upper >> limit on what can fit on even a TCP carried DNS message is >> approximately 4000 for A RR only and about 2000 for AAAA RR only. I believe that adding explicit mention of the dangers of too many PTR RRs at a name will help emphasize the "you really shouldn't depend on reverse mapping", which is a good thing. -- Sam _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
