Dear colleagues, On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:34:29PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > 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? [. . .] > > still covered by this sentence, but the following sentence seems to > > indicate the opposite. > > Sorry, I see the problem now with my response. No, the temporary > address does not need to have a reverse mapping, for exactly the same > reason that it does not need a forward one. > > I will attempt to come up with a sentence that makes this clearer, > given that it obviously isn't so far. I have attempted to address this problem by changing the text from 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. to Unless there are strong counter-considerations, such as a high probability of forcing large numbers of queries to use TCP, IP addresses both in use within a range, and referenced in a forward mapping, should have a reverse mapping. Does this address the concern? I put this into the tracker as issue 21. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
