> 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
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
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
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
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