In message <20130820144548.73129.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes: > Newsgroups: iecc.lists.ietf.ietf > From: John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> > Subject: Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408b > is-19.txt> > Summary: > Expires: > References: <5212fcef.80...@dcrocker.net> <55459829-933F-4157-893A-F90552D444 > 1...@frobbit.se> <5213174d.7080...@dcrocker.net> > <D2148A40-2673-40C7-8349-0A65D > 0d01...@frobbit.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: ma...@isc.org
