Subject: [DNSOP] reverse-mapping-considerations issue 15

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:25:22 -0500

Dear colleagues,

In

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00066.html

Brett Carr suggested that some additional text noting that some RIRs
have policies encouraging reverse mapping should be added to the
reverse-mapping-considerations draft.  I propose the following, which
I think responds to Brett's request and still avoids the objection
Joe Abley raised, that lameness checking should not be documented
here.

In section 2, I propose to add one sentence:

   Each RIR has its own policy for requirements for reverse-mapping
   maintenance; these policies may change from time to time.  Some
   RIRs have policies which actively encourage reverse mapping.

In section 4.1, I propose to add a phrase:

   It is desirable that Regional Registries and any Local Registries
   to whom they delegate encourage, or continue to encourage, reverse
   mappings.

If you have any comments or objections about these changes before I
alter the draft, I would appreciate hearing them.

Best regards,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Brett Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:35:19 +0100

> alter the draft, I would appreciate hearing them.

Thanks Andrew that satisfies my concerns and comments.

Regards

Brett

--
Brett Carr
Manager -- DNS Services Group
RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Amsterdam

---

From: Brett Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:35:19 +0100

Regards

Brett