-----Original Message-----
From: Hadmut Danisch [mailto:hadmut(_at_)danisch(_dot_)de]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 6:16 PM
To: terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
Cc: 'IETF MARID WG'
Subject: Re: consensus call of RR prefix
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:20:18AM -0400,
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
-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)
I don't understand this statement.
Why should
_marid IN TXT "blabla"
be a subdomain and not supported while
www IN A 1.2.3.4
is a normal entry not causing a subdomain? Where's the difference?
www is already built in (visibly or implied) for DNS providers UI. Non
standard subdomains often
are not. I am not saying this is correct (its not) or acceptable (that's a
business model decision
of DNS provider) but I believe it to be a reality for at least some DNS
providers.
I believe this is easier and more supported than placing the
TXT record directly in the domain name. Not all interfaces support
I disagree, I have seen more UI's that support TXT records (albeit very few,
but apparently more and
more every day) then support adhoc (beyond the standard www, ftp, etc)
subdomains.
IN TXT "..."
or
@ IN TXT "..."
and many users don't understand that. A TXT record for _marid
is plain, strait forward, and simple.
I agree *if* one understands how DNS works. I would hazard a guess that a
significant number of
owners of domain names wouldn't. This alone does not constitute grounds for
non-deployment of
_marid, but it is still a valid point against.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
regards
Hadmut