Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 25, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 2013-04-25, at 12:31, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> An easily accessible document describing the implications of choosing an RR type over funky TXT records, and how to evaluate these would be useful.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-5

Doh.

> 
>> Added brownie points if the document also describes how to do discovery / naming.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507#section-3.2

Doh, doh.

> 
>> TLSA settled on the _port._protcol.host.example.com "standard",  but much time was spent on this discussion (and if tree-walking could be performed, and if so how, etc.)
>> Yes, everyone's needs are different, but being able say "Some DNS wonks have already thought about this, go read RFC $foo before commenting please" would have been nice.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5507


Yup, you are right -- I forgotten this document… Well, actually I hadn't forgotten it, I just remembered it as being more "Please don't just stuff random crap in the DNS", then some motherhood and apple-pie stuff. Maybe I'm confusing it with something else? Whatever the case, oops.

Oh, someone also pointed out (off-list) that my message sounded like I was saying SPFbis is doing the wrong thing here. That was not my intent (I personally think that TXT is less elegant than a dedicated record, but a: they *appear* to have throughout this through, b: I have only skimmed their documents, but there are chats and graphs, and c: I have not been following the WG) -- my intent was instead to say that a document like, er, rfc5507 would be useful :-P

Blushes and wanders off-stage,
W
> 
> 
> Joe
> 

--
"Have you got any previous convictions?"

"Well, I dunno... I suppose I used to believe very firmly that a penny saved is a penny earned--"
-- Terry Pratchett