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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

On 11 August 2011 21:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I disagree.

Are you sure?  I wasn't talking about what works and is installed, but
about any future versions.  The IETF can certainly say what it intends
to do with the SPF RR, and it could even conclude that this was one of
the things that turned out to be bad ideas in both experiment(s).  But
I'd still say that "let's just (ab)use TXT" is not more necessary for
any "SPF 3" or "SenderID 3" as long as the SPF RR exists.

If you insist on it the WG should IMHO still be free to say whatever
it likes to say about the type 99 DNS SPF RR; maybe kill it for good.

> Type SPF has almost zero deployment, so using only Type SPF is not
> consistent with preserving the installed base.

We certainly don't disagree here, and this should be documented in a
4408bis.  Willing or not, in that case the SenderID experiment would
be forced to follow suit, because it is one of the points where it is
based on RFC 4408.

If the OpenSPF community arrived at new conclusions about the SPF RR
after the end of 2008 I missed it, please correct anything I write
where that might be the case.

> I don't think there's a need for any drafts relative to 4405/6/7 other
> than the one that declares them historic.

That would obviously solve the historic incompatibility between 4406
and 4408; and I'd be happy with any solution for 4408bis.  Above all
nobody should be forced to explain how the IETF managed to start two
subtly incompatible experiments after a new 4408bis is published.

> If you feel the need, I think "The WG shall not try to update other
> RFCs." is sufficient.

I feel the need to get rid of the incompatibility, and don't care how
this is done, as long as it is "thorough" :-)

-Frank