Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

S Moonesamy wrote:

>> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>> Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both 
>> formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect to see 
>> nine rows in the results table:
>>
>> SPF RR only, spf1 only
>> SPF RR only, spf2.0 only
>> SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>> TXT RR only, spf1 only
>> TXT RR only, spf2.0 only
>> TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only
>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only
>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0
> 
> Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of 
> RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE.  
> Would that be sufficient?

I don't see where this is headed. The report was looking for something 
that was already there and know and I guess it trying to get a 
justification to eliminate something.

What are we looking for?

   Elimination of SPF RR lookups?
   Elimination of SPF2.0 content in the SPF or TXT records?

I hate to revert back to the original design presumptions in MARID, 
but everyone was working on the basis that one day DNS servers, ALL OF 
THEM, CROSS THE OS BOARD, would inevitably be updated to support 
RFC3597 Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types.  But that 
has not been the case, MS DNS 5.0 was only updated to support SVR, 
DNSSEC. But not the passthru query recursive requirements necessary 
for RFC3597.

So supporting any unnamed RR type is simply not practical today. 
However, as predicted, the migration advice did materialize, abeit in 
short numbers.  So IMO, we need to make a decision if its still 
feasible to pursue unnamed RR type support.

Second and finally, the results of SPF2.0 record is irrelevant because 
this REPORT is not doing anything towards or does it have any business 
in eliminating or providing the "illusion" of eliminating Sender ID or 
SIDF (Sender ID Framework) which includes PRA and SUBMITTER protocol 
support.

This Report has failed to consider the original EXPERIMENTAL questions 
of the so call conflicts that were cited, ones I have failed to see 
since its inception in early 2000s.

Address the real technical issues so that deployments of many years 
can learn what do  do with the mix support of SPF vs SIDF and also TXT 
vs SPF RRs.  The data in this report has not provided any engineering 
insight whatsoever other than the fact that clients DO support both 
SIDF and SPF RRs.

-- 
HLS