On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:43:05PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ wrote: > > regarding this document, I'd be confused here, and ask why this > > document the deployment of the reverse mappings. > > Thanks for this. I think there is a third reason to add to your > list, though, and I wonder what you think of it: > > C. Because the facility exists, and people are using it, so if you > want to be fully interoperable with the rest of the Internet, > you'd be better off maintaining the reverse mappings.
There are more reasons to have a proper reverse, which are missing from in draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt which only focussed on PTR and A records. It does not take into account the use of SSHP (RFC-4255) and IPSECKEY (RFC-4025) records. It also does not take into accout Opportunistic Encryption (RFC-4322). Especially in combination with DNSSEC (deployed for all of RIPE's reverse address space already) There might also be various voip/enum related records that might benefit from a working reverse. Paul
