----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <dts(_at_)senie(_dot_)com>
To: "MARID" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: consensus call of RR prefix
At 01:47 AM 9/6/2004, Bill McQuillan wrote:
On Sun, 2004-09-05, Mark wrote:
If we require an underscored _marid prefix to prevent potential
collisions
with existing namespace, are we then not dealing with a circular
reasoning
here?
I mean, if the underscore prefix is not widely deployed because few
DNS
providers support it, then choosing an underscored prefix to avoid
collision
leads to having to make world-wide changes to providers' User
Interfaces, so
that the _marid prefic can be widely deployed; after which time you
lost the
advantage again of not running the risk of collision.
I believe the reason for the underscore is that it is, in fact, NOT a
valid *hostname* character, but it IS valid in a domain name. It seems to
be a common, but incorrect, belief that DNS is only for hostnames.
So let me get this straight.
Folks are worried about the companies some people outsource their DNS to
(instead of running their own servers) not handling _marid or _foo or
whatever the tag would be. But folks are not worried about updating name
server software to support a new RR type and getting that software
deployed, and are not worried about getting MTA software updated to handle
new a new capability and get that deployed.
Am I the only one who thinks this is looney? If SPF or SenderID become
accepted, then people will update MTA software to make it work. They will
update DNS server software to make it work. And if outsourced DNS
providers
wish to remain competitive, they'll add capabilities to their GUIs. Let
the
market handle it.
It sure seems like folks are getting hung up over what's probably the
EASIEST thing to deal with, that being finding a DNS outsourcer (if you
even need one) that'll publish the records you request.
Let's get back to deciding what's right at the protocol level, and leave
the business decisions of web-interfaced DNS providers out of the
discussion.
I, for one, would like to hear more on the technical merits of using _spf
or _marid or _foo vs. not using it.
Me too - I am lost now - would someone like to summarise the requirement for
a sub-domain at all. The reasoning has got lost in the chaff of whether
it's possible - which it is, or will be once the standard hits the streets.
I will happily add the names of DNS providers that have this facility to the
list at www.dns.idimo.com so that there is the beginnings of a reference for
people who want to experiment. Please see the notes on the website.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492