Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 11.08.2011 23:41, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> But I do agree that, if people are wedded to using their bad idea 
>> forever, one isn't going to change their mind, and it is silly to have 
>> two mechanisms for achieving the same goal one of which is never used 
>> (particularly if it causes additional DNS load).
> 
> That SPF used TXT the way it did may be unfortunate, but as you said,
> we're not going to change it.  We should document the discussion and the
> results of years of deployment, hold our noses and live with it.  I'd also
> be fine with including verbose admonitions to future protocol designers
> NOT to use this as an example of possible TXT use in future protocols.

Actually, SPF has already paved the way for a number of other protocols.  To
quote John Levine:

    We in the DKIM community were lucky that the SPFers
    already had those arrows in their backs.
        http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00378.html

The discussion was quite thorough, and, if I haven't misread it, the
conclusion was that TXT records are the best option for this kind of use,
although such specs formally pollute a non-controlled namespace --somewhat
mitigated by leading underscores.

How about this?

    The working group shall document the existing, widely implemented
    protocol, which has sufficiently broad, interoperable deployment to be
    on Standards Track.  Capitalizing on the experience gained in the
    experiment, and taking advantage from newly established protocols, the
    working group may propose alternatives to the existing practices, or
    deprecate some of them, provided that all introduced changes are fully
    backward compatible with RFC 4408.  The working group shall not try to
    update other RFCs, although interoperability problems may be discussed,
    especially if they concern security considerations.

jm2c