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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, "John Levine" writes:
> Newsgroups: iecc.lists.ietf.ietf
> From: John Levine <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408b
> is-19.txt>
> Summary:
> Expires:
> References: <[e-mail]> <55459829-933F-4157-893A-F90552D444
> [e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <D2148A40-2673-40C7-8349-0A65D
> [e-mail]>
> 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: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]