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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Newsgroups: iecc.lists.ietf.ietf
From: John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>
Summary:
Expires:
References: <5212FCEF.80701@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <55459829-933F-4157-893A-F90552D4441A@xxxxxxxxxx> <5213174D.7080504@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <D2148A40-2673-40C7-8349-0A65D0D01794@xxxxxxxxxx>
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?

This impresses me as one of those problems where the solution is
"don't do that."

R's,
John




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]