Subject: [DNSOP] ISSUE 10 reverse-mapping-considerations

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:27:32 -0500

Dear Colleagues,

At the late meeting in San Diego, I said when discussing the open
issues list for the reverse-mapping-considerations draft that I had
some language that I'd send to the list for discussion before
updating the document.  Here is that text.

Issue 10 is the extent to which this document applies to RFC 3330
space; and in particular, to RFC 1918 space.  

I propose to add the following text to section 4.1 ("Delegation
Recommendations"):

   Some IP addresses on the Internet are assigned for special use. 
   These addresses are described in [RFC3330].  In general, for
   addressess that are expected to work as a regular part of the
   public Internet, the same considerations should be taken into
   account as for any other address.  In the case private-use
   [RFC1918] networks, the policies around reverse mapping are a
   local consideration to the same degree that the addresses are
   private.

The point of that "to the same degree" bit at the end is to allow
people to point out to those whose reverse queries are leaking out to
AS112 a better practice for how to configure their DNS.  I didn't add
the reference to draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers because I've
had the impression people would prefer not to hold this up while
something else makes it through editorial revision.

I plan to incorporate this text in the next revision, barring any
objections.

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