Dear colleagues,
Apparently, my brain doesn't work well after relative humidity reaches a
certain point. My apologies.
The point of Issue 19 is the continued concern over the lack of
clarity around the example of RFC 4255. Rather than bloat the
document with explication, we will remove the exam
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:14:14PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Issue 17: the term "in use" in section 4.2 is not clear.
Er, issue 19, of course. Thanks to those who pointed out just how
badly the southern Ontario heat is affecting my pea brain!
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
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
