Re: Bonjour-dev Digest, Vol 10, Issue 19

[Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[e-mail]>]

(Because this was brought up very, very recently.)

On 21 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Rick Mann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:24 , David Brower <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> It depends on the records.  If you phrase it like you that, you will probably get the blank stare answer.  When you start talking about the PTR, SRV and TXT records specifically, then you'll have a case -- but it isn't really Bonjour that is the proximate force, because those were issues against interpretations of the previous RFCs.
>> 
>> Now, the legalistic point I'm debating at the moment is whether it is proper and/or legal to have the SRV record use as the target name the string version of an ip4 address, eg:  "192.169.0.145".   That's a perfectly legal and representable set of characters for a hostname, so maybe OK.   How about for an ip6 address  with colons, which aren't allowed in hostnames?
> 
> All I know is that a couple years ago, I tried and failed with both DynDNS and DNSMadeEasy to get them to allow me to put spaces in TXT records. I cited all relevant material I could find, but they kept going back to the original DNS specifications saying those didn't allow spaces.

RFC 1035, 2.3.1, wisely advises the use of compatible constraints on labels in host names.  I am aware that DNS is binary transparent, and mDNS/DNS-SD make use of that feature to be useful, but I can well understand the scepticism of your DNS hosts.  Perhaps this is a legitimate call to relax the restrictions, *if* the operator/user is aware of the potential consequences.

Cheers,
Sabahattin