Subject: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 19: confusing example

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:14:15 -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

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:54:47 -0400

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

Er, issue 19, of course.  Thanks to those who pointed out just how
badly the southern Ontario heat is affecting my pea brain!

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:54:47 -0400

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:17:47 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Apparently, my brain doesn't work well after relative humidity reaches a
certain point.  My apologies.

The point of Issue 19 is the continued concern over the lack of
clarity around the example of RFC 4255.  Rather than bloat the
document with explication, we will remove the example, since there are
already two servicable examples in section 1.3.

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:17:47 -0400

Dear colleagues,

A