[DNSOP] Three new issues for reverse-mapping-considerations

Dear colleagues, I have entered three new issues in the tracker for this draft. Each will be covered in threads to follow this note. The issues are these: - Issue 17: The term "in use" is not clear - Issue 18: Need reference to RFC 1912 - Issue 19: Reference to RFC 4255 is opaque A -- Andre

[DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 17: "in use"

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

[DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 18: RFC 1912

Issue 18: The draft should refer to RFC 1912 Discussion: RFC 1912 suggests that every A record should have a corresponding PTR. Proposed resolution: add the following text to section 2, as a new paragraph, after "its use is codified in [RFC3596].": [RFC1912] suggests that it is an o

[DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 19: confusing example

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

Re: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping issue 18: RFC 1912

> Issue 18: The draft should refer to RFC 1912 > > Discussion: RFC 1912 suggests that every A record should have a > corresponding PTR. > > Proposed resolution: add the following text to section 2, as a new > paragraph, after "its use is codified in [RFC3596].": > >[RFC1912] sugge