On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:38 AM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote:
> > . . .Table 1 of the I-D is > > +-------------+-----+------------+ > | _NODE NAME | RR | REFERENCE | > +-------------+-----+------------+ > | _tcp | SRV | [RFC2782] | > | _udp | SRV | [RFC2782] | > | _sctp | SRV | [RFC2782] | > | _dccp | SRV | [RFC2782] | > | _domainkey | TXT | [RFC6376] | > | _spf | TXT | [RFC7208] | <----- > | _dmarc | TXT | [RFC7489] | > | _vouch | TXT | [RFC5518] | > +-------------+-----+------------+ > > The inclusion of "_spf" in this table is worrisome. RFC7208 uses it as an example only, not as a defined item. If one were to take all such sample usages, we would also have to define _foo and _bar. I'm sure that some of the passive DNS folks could provide a lot more "_" terms that are currently in use. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
