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
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:34:29 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Hello, again,
Thanks for the detailed response. I now understand what I was
concerned about more clearly, and hopefully I can be clearer on that
point this time.
At Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:42:34 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version
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,
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: why *should* one
On 1 Apr 2008, at 16:36 , Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:28AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
Multiple PTR records can be stored in a single PTR RRset. If a
device at an IP address (v4 or v6) has multiple identities with
domain names, it would be good to have a PTR for
At 7:55 +1100 4/1/08, Mark Andrews wrote:
Multiple PTR records scale worse than multiple A records.
That sentence is hard to parse.
I looked at the draft again and this thread.
The issue is not clear. Yes, you can have multiple PTR records.
Yes, there is a limit on how many records of
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 10:36:28AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
Multiple PTR records can be stored in a single PTR RRset. If a
device at an IP address (v4 or v6) has multiple identities with
domain names, it would be good to have a PTR for each. However, this
is not
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I'm inclined to add this text. I'd like additional expressions of
support (or edits, or whatever) from the WG to confirm my inclination.
I agree that it's worth mentioning.
___
DNSOP mailing list
Hello,
Thank you for your detailed comments. I have some additional
questions and remarks below.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:17PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: why
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 03:47:29PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Starting from a given IPv4 address (possibly the result of a query
for an A RR), the term existing reverse data means that a query for
reversed-ip4-address.in-addr.arpa. type PTR results in a response
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
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
I'm going to ask this question here too.. are we talking about the DNS
or are we talking about an applications use of data published in the DNS?
i see this draft in the context of the historical DNS ... it is a mapping
service, a name to an address AND an address to a name. the mapping
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
At Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (EDT),
Paul Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this definition is 100% appropriate. Consider the case
where a PTR RR is not provided for reversed-ip4-address.in-addr.arpa
but some other type of RR (e.g. TXT) is. Then the response to the PTR
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
I've read and reviewed
I oppose this document. I won't go into details since none of my
objections have ever been addressed, other than to say We addressed
your objection with a frivolous change or no change at all. Reposting
the details seems an utter waste of time.
If this document is eventually approved by the WG, I
Peter Koch wrote:
Dear WG,
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
ending Friday, 2008-04-04, 18:00 UTC.
The
19 matches
Mail list logo
