Re: Last call of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrik,
At 11:58 20-08-2013, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>As the bottle is opened, I hereby state my 
>objection to Section 3.1 of 
>draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 for the reasons 
>explained below. I do agree (as stated below) 
>that the section of RFC 4408 that specify how to 
>use both SPF and TXT resource record types 
>include an error as it does not lead to interoperability.
>
>As the intention with use of both TXT and SPF 
>originally was to migrate from TXT to SPF I 
>instead of what is outlined in the draft suggest 
>that a proper migration strategy is laid out 
>(look up mandatory to implement SPF and fall 
>back to TXT). This instead of deprecation of the SPF record.
>
>In general I do believe, for example when 
>looking at IPv6 and DNSSEC and similar 
>technologies, that the lifetime of RFC 4408 is 
>too short to deprecate any of the proposed 
>records that are in use, specifically as RFC 
>4408 explicitly do allow use of both.

draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 is not the usual 
Proposed Standard effort.  The SPFBIS WG was 
tasked to move RFC 4408 to Proposed Standard with 
restrictions.  One of the restrictions is not to 
review the design.  I hope that explains why 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 is what it is.  I 
suggested to the working group to review the 
issue of the migration strategy (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03934.html ).

 From Section 3.1.1 of RFC 4408:

   "It is recognized that the current practice (using a TXT record) is
    not optimal, but it is necessary because there are a number of DNS
    server and resolver implementations in common use that cannot handle
    the new RR type.  The two-record-type scheme provides a forward path
    to the better solution of using an RR type reserved for this purpose."

There isn't similar text 
in  draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.  Hector Santos commented that:

   "we will add SPF type support in our implementation once the infrastructure
    is ready. For us, as a windows shop, namely Microsoft DNS servers."

I read 
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/5841e884-db22-42a1-8530-615a375662cc/dns-server-support-for-new-or-unamed-rr-type-records 
My conclusion is that there is a DNS server that cannot handle the new RR Type.

The question is how to address the objection about the migration strategy.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)