IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Thu, 25 April 2013 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C941F21F92C0 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFmXQBrE-wMS for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65FD21F95F9 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1366917302; x=1398453302; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0jJFxTqUKFE0qxGwPwrMmFb4aF4mI4/SBEm/IP2DKDA=; b=AVjDA8rwFAMWot9epgJ6u9mS78lS8hJK9RfZP06Ce8k42e9LcGa6SF0w P3rH+iB4VDBl2mTTYlhnjf8fuADwv9Uj0rDENAdesBwZ2Z2+Zz7099QRl IJeRD09Ze78Ekf56MjtZEQvKhqPOD+/d+7HzR9M5qj2NCXYdKR/XYAe69 M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,552,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="36709128"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2013 12:14:52 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,552,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="527780782"
Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 25 Apr 2013 12:14:52 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:14:52 -0700
Message-ID: <517980AA.1070509@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:14:50 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <20130425013317.36729.qmail@joyce.lan> <80ADB3EE-17FD-4628-B818-801CB71BCBFE@virtualized.org> <BB8C643A-FC46-4B2F-B677-F1B7CAB0E79F@frobbit.se> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1304251030380.65043@joyce.lan> <14A728AE-83DC-4C1F-A88A-6F988D37F2C7@frobbit.se> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077515C1B4@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077515DA6A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <51797BB8.30303@qti.qualcomm.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077515DD8D@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077515DD8D@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: "dnsext@ietf.org Group" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:15:05 -0000

On 4/25/13 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> So, I'm looking at the charter, and I see nothing in the charter about deprecating SPF.   Indeed, I see this, which I think forbids deprecating SPF:
>
>    
>> Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:
>> [...]
>> * Removal of existing features that are in current use.
>>      
> This doesn't seem to be subject to a lot of interpretation.
>    

Indeed, and this was a topic of some serious discussion at the time that 
6686 was being worked on, and I'll suggest, as some others have, that 
you read that document to see why the decision was made. (Indeed, this 
particular charter item was the topic of a rather contentious appeal to 
the AD that went a different way for a different topic.)

And I'd suggest that this is no longer an interesting topic of 
conversation for DNSEXT.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email