On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
On 4-Jan-2007, at 13:15, Dean Anderson wrote:
In general, the DNS response to a reverse map query for an address
ought to reflect what is supposed to be seen at the address by the
machine initiating the query.
There is no exact
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:42:03PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
The debate is over the right answer given for reverse DNS queries.
I don't think there is anywhere in the draft where anything says
there is the right answer for reverse DNS queries. If you have
found text that says that in the
At 15:13 -0500 1/5/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
{suggestion: run two sets of nameservers, one set with public
information, and another set with inside information}
Well that's one solution. (Or using implementation-specific features
that modify responses based on query ancillary data or other
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Since as a matter of history it's a revival of that draft under a
different filename (as some people objected to the required), that
shouldn't be too surprising.
That's good the title has changed, then. I'm glad for that. I thought
the draft was
Hi Dean,
Thanks for your message. Some additional questions and comments are
inline, below.
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:29:13PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
Right. The disagreement is that your camp thinks there must be an
affirmative answer to a PTR query that must match a forward name, where
