On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: > Here are my minor comments on the draft: > > 1. In Section 1.2 > > 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 > other than Name Error. > > 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 > query won't be a Name Error, but it wouldn't be reasonable to consider > it the existence of reverse data. I'd suggest revising this to: > > 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 positive > response (i.e,, one that contains a PTR RRset for the queried name > in the answer section).
Would it contain these if classless reverse delegations (eg CNAME's) were used? Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
