IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 25 April 2013 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 385E021F8C08 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 qXEV1UZFIzhR for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A130E21F899E for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 33147 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2013 02:38:39 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 25 Apr 2013 02:38:39 -0000
Message-ID: <51789755.3060803@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:39:17 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20130425013317.36729.qmail@joyce.lan> <80ADB3EE-17FD-4628-B818-801CB71BCBFE@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <80ADB3EE-17FD-4628-B818-801CB71BCBFE@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 02:41:04 -0000

David Conrad wrote:

> My reading of 6686 would suggest that SPF has greater
> penetration than either DNSSEC or IPv6 which both face the
> practical barriers you mention,

Good point.

> yet I'd argue deploying DNSSEC and IPv6 are the right thing to do.

It is not.

Because of so high noise level here attempting to deploy DNSSEC,
we fail to join a lot of discussions on the real works.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email