Re: [dnsext] [spfbis] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

In my view, since I was the one who posted and asked questions about 
this very issue in IETF and DNSOP to get a feel about the unnamed RRTYPE 
and rfc3597 "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types", the 
current status quo, nine years later, what most preferred, I don't 
believe there was a consensus when you include the inputs from the other 
list to just stay with TXT. My concern was whether an RFC will be 
"sanctioned" as a proposed standard for what most experts believe, 
including myself, is a KLUDGE solution and not ideal in large scale and 
worst as more and more protocols are written using a TXT only solutions, 
its all limited.

What I felt is that some were some key folks who were now more accepting 
of a TXT based record and possibly because DNS servers have failed to 
keep up with this need (support RFC3597 or something like it).  That was 
the expectation in my view and we expected a long term migration to 
occur too.

I would support keeping the RRTYPE. I believe it is be less of a cost 
issue - implementators don't have to "UPGRADE/KEEP UP" to BIS by 
removing RRTYPE overhead.   By making it obsolete, you automatically 
make all SPF implementators "out of date."

Anyway, I am not too sure if everyone will like this outside the SPF BIS 
group. I didn't get that feel. Only a selective few (key cogs) that are 
part of this work has began to show an acceptance to it.  So if that 
matters, what is what I was trying to feel in IETF and DNSOP - who else 
agreed with that from an endorsement standpoint.

--
HLS

On 4/25/2013 1:34 PM, 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.
>
> I certainly have the same heartburn as everyone else about having used
> TXT in this manner, but that ship has long sailed. This is running and
> interoperable code and it is being documented on the standards track.
> Unless you think there is a piece of information I missed in my
> assessment that we had consensus to go forward with this work in the
> first place, you are going to have a hard time convincing me that this
> is not in the rough part of the consensus now.
>
> pr
>