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 <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? Good point, I guess the phrase "result in" would implicitly have the implication, but we may have to revise it a bit like, e.g.,: "(i.e,, one that provides a PTR RRset corresponding to the IPv4 address)". at the risk of making the definition relatively ambiguous. Or we could also remove the "i.e" part. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
