ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>

2013-08-20 10:48:15
On 8/20/2013 8:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20130820144548(_dot_)73129(_dot_)qmail(_at_)joyce(_dot_)lan>, "John 
Levine" writes:
...
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.


Exactly right. For some of the 'underscore' uses, maintenance of the information in that subordinate node is best performed by a team that is separate from the regular DNS operations people.

DKIM is an easy example, since the records often are better handled by the email operations folk.

So I'm continuing to miss the 'problem' here. Being able to separate administration of the underscore-based attribute information is a feature, not a bug.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>