In message <20130820144548(_dot_)73129(_dot_)qmail(_at_)joyce(_dot_)lan>, "John
Levine" writes:
Newsgroups: iecc.lists.ietf.ietf
From: John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408b
is-19.txt>
Summary:
Expires:
References: <5212FCEF(_dot_)80701(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
<55459829-933F-4157-893A-F90552D444
1A(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se> <5213174D(_dot_)7080504(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
<D2148A40-2673-40C7-8349-0A65D
0D01794(_at_)frobbit(_dot_)se>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization:
Keywords:
Cc:
Cleverness: some
The two following MIGHT NOT be in the same zone:
foo.example. IN X RDATAX
_bar.foo.example. IN TXT RDATAY
Since prefixed names have never been used for anything other than
providing information about the unprefixed name, what conceivable
operational reason could there be to put a zone cut at the prefix?
When you have "_users" and you want to move the users out of the
hosts namespace and have whom ever deals with people manage that
part of the namespace.
This impresses me as one of those problems where the solution is
"don't do that."
There are good reasons to split off administrative control. "don't
do that" isn't a answer.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org