Messages On Startup

[Kevin Darcy]

phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:

>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>In article <cge2go$1ub7$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>>>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>In article <cg6c75$nm3$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>>>>>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmmm, okay, I'll go tell our plant-floor folks that they can't use their 
>>>>>>paint-control/milling/stamping/machining/welding/electronics-testing 
>>>>>>devices any more and they'll just have to improvise somehow...
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>What's your problem?  Just put "check-names master ignore" in the 
>>>>>options section and you'll be all set.
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>My only point is that a default setting of "fail" would be rather 
>>>>Internet-biased and misguided.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Another point in favor of that default is that it's a safer setting.  If 
>>>you're connecting to the Internet and don't have things configured in 
>>>the standard way, you can cause problems for others.  So it's best to 
>>>have the defaults correct for the interoperation cases.
>>>
>>>If the default doesn't match your needs for private use, they only 
>>>inconvenience you, not anyone else.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I can sort of see that point, Barry, but as I've already asserted in 
>>this thread, it's usually large organizations that host DNS, 
>>organizations that can be expected to have hardened processes that 
>>prevent interoperability-causing data to be loaded into any nameserver 
>>at all. So for that small category, a conservative check-names seems 
>>rather superfluous. I would also point out that such large organizations 
>>have an *incentive* to be as interoperable as possible, since more 
>>interoperability means more visitors to the site(s), more interest in 
>>the products, more sales, more revenue, etc. So if underscores cause 
>>interoperability problems -- and I still remain rather skeptical about 
>>that assertion -- then those orgs are going to crack down on 
>>underscores, and if they have any brains at all, they'll stop the 
>>underscores in a way that doesn't involve bringing down the whole zone 
>>(which is basically the blunt-instrument approach that "check-names 
>>fail" takes).
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>                                                                         
>>                                       - Kevin
>>    
>>
>
>I don't see why underscores should be used AT ALL, there have been 
>at various times problems, it _is_ against RFC. Why use something
>that _might_ impare when other characters are available ??
>
Aesthetically, I don't particularly like underscores either, but lots of 
folks do, and don't give a rat's ass about purely-theoretical 
interoperability issues. And as long as the (internal or external) 
customer is paying the bills, how am I, or any DNS admin, in a position 
to say "no"?

                                                                         
                                                   - Kevin