No, don't make prefixes required (this is an oversimplication but I believe to
cover the reasons for
common deployment):
-not all dns servers support "_"
-domains with potential collision issues can explicitly use a small redirect to
move the spf query
result elsewhere
-many dns providers do not allow subdomains (or not easily via an interface,
and we need to keep
publishing easy or it won't get done)(yes I know many ISPs don't support TXT RR
either, but that
*is* changing and it *is* an RFC compliant DNS standard, even if SPF abuses it)
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Andrew
Newton
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:32 PM
To: IETF MARID WG
Subject: consensus call of RR prefix
From the discussion on prefixes for the DNS record, there
seems to have
been no discernible outcome regarding the use of prefixes for the
purposes of avoiding collisions with other DNS records (thus avoiding
fallback to DNS over TCP).
Naturally, this issue wraps itself into both the versioning/scoping
issue and the wildcard issue. Based on the comments received so far,
it is the opinion of the co-chairs that there is no consensus
on how to
handle wildcards and that most participants seem to agree that
wildcards present a problem no matter the solution. Based on the
comments received so far, it is the opinion of the co-chairs
that there
is consensus on placing the "scope" in the RDATA of the record and no
consensus on the scope being in the prefix.
Therefore, that leaves one under-discussed question: should a
prefix be
used to avoid collision with other records as one measure of
preventing
the requirement of DNS over TCP?
Incidentally, the co-chairs note that many examples of the
prefix have
used "-marid". We would note that "MARID" is the name of
this working
group and likely not meaningful beyond the context of discussions and
process of this working group. Therefore we recommend a more
meaningful label such as "_rmx": the deduction of its meaning
is easier
and it references the genesis of the MARID idea.
-your co-chairs