Subject: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 17: "in use"

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:53:58 -0400

Issue 17: the term "in use" in section 4.2 is not clear.

Discussion: Section 4.2 talks about addresses "in use" in a range, but
does not address the case where a host has no name in a forward zone.
Therefore, either the term "in use" doesn't cover every address
actually in use, or else it imposes a new requirement -- that hosts
cannot be unnamed in some way.

Proposed resolution: The following text is proposed, replacing the
current text that starts the same way:

        Unless there are strong counter-considerations, such as a high
        probability of forcing large numbers of queries to use TCP, IP
        addresses in use within a range and referenced in a forward
        mapping should have a reverse mapping. Those addresses not in
        use, and those that are not valid for use (zeros or ones
        broadcast addresses within a CIDR block) need not have
        mappings, although it may be useful to indicate that a given
        range is unassigned.

I would like to include this change in a -04 submission on 2007-06-28
unless there are any objections.

Best regards,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop