At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:34:29 -0400, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > or something else? In either case, does this mean we don't have to > > > > provide reverse mappings for addresses that are NOT referenced in a > > > > forward mapping? > > > > > > No. We added this text exactly to address your previous objection > > > that the text appeared to be requiring that every IP address anybody > > > uses has to have a reverse map, which is absurd since every IP address > > > in use doesn't need to have a forward map. > > > > I'm still not sure...The "No" seems to say this temporary address is > > 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. Okay, thanks. Then I think I can basically agree on this draft on top of this understanding. But I'd still like to make several clarifications and possibly wording changes before publishing it. I'll try to make these points clearer in subsequent responses. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
