(Because this was brought up very, very recently.)
On 21 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Rick Mann <rmann(_at_)latencyzero(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:24 , David Brower
<david(_dot_)brower(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com> wrote:
It depends on the records. If you phrase it like you that, you will
probably get the blank stare answer. When you start talking about the PTR,
SRV and TXT records specifically, then you'll have a case -- but it isn't
really Bonjour that is the proximate force, because those were issues
against interpretations of the previous RFCs.
Now, the legalistic point I'm debating at the moment is whether it is proper
and/or legal to have the SRV record use as the target name the string
version of an ip4 address, eg: "192.169.0.145". That's a perfectly legal
and representable set of characters for a hostname, so maybe OK. How about
for an ip6 address with colons, which aren't allowed in hostnames?
All I know is that a couple years ago, I tried and failed with both DynDNS
and DNSMadeEasy to get them to allow me to put spaces in TXT records. I cited
all relevant material I could find, but they kept going back to the original
DNS specifications saying those didn't allow spaces.
RFC 1035, 2.3.1, wisely advises the use of compatible constraints on labels in
host names. I am aware that DNS is binary transparent, and mDNS/DNS-SD make
use of that feature to be useful, but I can well understand the scepticism of
your DNS hosts. Perhaps this is a legitimate call to relax the restrictions,
*if* the operator/user is aware of the potential consequences.
Cheers,
Sabahattin