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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 20 August 2013 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8597921F9C47 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.423, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-OI-jXCqrjX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3A011E8229 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7KFlLxu027805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:47:24 -0700
Message-ID: <52138F71.3050203@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:46:57 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrik Fältström <patrik@frobbit.se>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
References: <20130820144548.73129.qmail@joyce.lan> <20130820151255.8C49538B579B@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130820151255.8C49538B579B@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:47:42 -0000

On 8/20/2013 8:12 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20130820144548.73129.qmail@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
...
>>> 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.


Exactly right.  For some of the 'underscore' uses, maintenance of the 
information in that subordinate node is best performed by a team that is 
separate from the regular DNS operations people.

DKIM is an easy example, since the records often are better handled by 
the email operations folk.

So I'm continuing to miss the 'problem' here.  Being able to separate 
administration of the underscore-based attribute information is a 
feature, not a bug.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net