RE: consensus call of RR prefix

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No, don't make prefixes required (this is an oversimplication but I believe to cover the reasons for
common deployment):

-not all dns servers support "_"
-domains with potential collision issues can explicitly use a small redirect to move the spf query
result elsewhere
-many dns providers do not allow subdomains (or not easily via an interface, and we need to keep
publishing easy or it won't get done)(yes I know many ISPs don't support TXT RR either, but that
*is* changing and it *is* an RFC compliant DNS standard, even if SPF abuses it)


Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fax: (416) 441-9085


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:32 PM
> To: IETF MARID WG
> Subject: consensus call of RR prefix
>
>
>
>  From the discussion on prefixes for the DNS record, there
> seems to have
> been no discernible outcome regarding the use of prefixes for the
> purposes of avoiding collisions with other DNS records (thus avoiding
> fallback to DNS over TCP).
>
> Naturally, this issue wraps itself into both the versioning/scoping
> issue and the wildcard issue.  Based on the comments received so far,
> it is the opinion of the co-chairs that there is no consensus
> on how to
> handle wildcards and that most participants seem to agree that
> wildcards present a problem no matter the solution.  Based on the
> comments received so far, it is the opinion of the co-chairs
> that there
> is consensus on placing the "scope" in the RDATA of the record and no
> consensus on the scope being in the prefix.
>
> Therefore, that leaves one under-discussed question: should a
> prefix be
> used to avoid collision with other records as one measure of
> preventing
> the requirement of DNS over TCP?
>
> Incidentally, the co-chairs note that many examples of the
> prefix have
> used "-marid".  We would note that "MARID" is the name of
> this working
> group and likely not meaningful beyond the context of discussions and
> process of this working group.  Therefore we recommend a more
> meaningful label such as "_rmx": the deduction of its meaning
> is easier
> and it references the genesis of the MARID idea.
>
> -your co-chairs
>