JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> 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-i
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 .in-addr.arpa
> > but some other type of RR (e.g. TXT) is. Then the response to the PTR
> > query won'
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
>.in-addr.arpa. type PTR result
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
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
