On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:51:37AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote: > > There is imprecise language in RFC1035 (1987) implying that there should be > only one PTR per IP but it depends on the idea of a "primary host name" for > an IP, which is not universally meaningful or useful as a naming concept.
We attempted to make this clearer at one point (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06) but the draft was so controversial that it never managed to find consensus until it was watered down to say "A may be A. Or maybe not. You choose." Didn't seem a lot of point in publishing by then. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
