(Because this was brought up very, very recently.) On 21 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Rick Mann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 21, 2013, at 12:24 , David Brower <[email protected]> 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
