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 PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop