Re: [dnsext] [spfbis] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 04/25/2013 10:34 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/25/13 10:42 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> And IMNSHO spfbis is out of scope prescribing TXT records, just because
>> of this contagiousness.
>>
>> For the record: I think that the spfbis draft is unfit for publication
>> as RFC unless TXT records are deprectaed as only carrier of data.
>
> SPFBIS AD hat on for this:
>
> We are *long* past this discussion. This discussion should have happened
> at SPFBIS *chartering* time, as it is crystal clear from the charter
> that existing features currently in use in SPF are not going away.
> Indeed, the TXT record was specifically mentioned in the charter.

As Ted pointed out, that seems not to be the case.

Meanwhile, some of us have spoken long and loud about how deprecating 
the SPF record is the wrong path, which includes before, during, and 
after spfbis was chartered. Those concerns have consistently been 
shouted down, as you are doing now.

The way forward is simple, spfbis should specify that compliant senders 
MUST publish the SPF record, and compliant receivers MUST query for it 
first. Then down the road at some point we can deprecate TXT for this 
purpose. If that had been done in the beginning we would be celebrating 
the deprecation of the TXT record right about now, instead of having 
another round of contentious arguments about doing it the right way in 
the first place.

Everyone knows the history of how hard it was to get new RRtypes off the 
ground at the time SPF first came into being. A lot of lessons were 
learned from that, and the situation is much better now. Everyone also 
understands that the problem of upgrading 3rd party and/or web-based 
provisioning systems to accommodate new records is still a problem. But 
that problem doesn't get better by ignoring it.

In short, the proponents of SPF (which by the way, I like and use) 
should be focusing on doing the right thing here, instead of the 
expedient thing.

Doug