Re: [dnsext] [spfbis] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Måns Nilsson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:03:55PM +0200 Quoting Patrik Fältström ([e-mail]):
>>
>> On 25 apr 2013, at 16:44, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > In any event, the SPF draft is in WGLC.  Feel free to read the extensive discussion in the list archives and let them know how you feel.
>>
>> They know how i feel. We in IETF do believe in rough consensus. I am this time on the rough side.
>>
>> That does not imply I am quiet in other places, and I am as many others nervous over the implications.
>
> This is a slippery slope. One record overload is not bad, but it sort
> of opens the floodgates for systematic overloading. DNSEXT and DNSOP
> certainly need to get involved; because this is way bigger than just SPF.
>
> And IMNSHO spfbis is out of scope prescribing TXT records, just because
> of this contagiousness.
>

It is not so much that SPFbis is prescribing practice as it is
updating to describe practice and avoid potential problems that have
been identified with having both TXT and type 99 records (without a
lot of verbage to address hypothetical future use).

> 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.
>

Would you be any happier if the WG left type 99 records and in a coy
manner made it clear that usage is overwhelmingly TXT based with
little likelyhood of type 99 gathering any meaningful traction? I'm
sure that if the issues surrounding adoption of new RR types were
resolved we would not be having this discussion - but they haven't
been resolved.

Mike