Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

On 21 aug 2013, at 19:31, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not
> mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant
> operational effort, rather than a stray implementation here or there,
> which counts as "noise" in any legitimate statistical analysis -- what
> is the basis for your conclusion?

As I did show, the numbers comes directly from tcpdump on my auth DNS server, where I checked how many do query for TXT and SPF(*). I do not understand the question. What else do you want?

As a few others have said, 4408 do have an error that makes it impossible to use RFC 4408 for migration from TXT to SPF which was the original intent. I do not understand how the conclusion, given the number of SPF queries that is made, on how to fix the problem with RFC 4408 is to deprecate the SPF RRtype.

And to your question on deprecation, yes, to me one do need much more arguments to deprecate something. Specifically when originally the intent was to migrate to what is now to be deprecated.

And this is why I am objecting to 4408bis to be published as an RFC.

If you had an RFC without issues that really did talk about a migration strategy (including having examples using SPF records and not TXT which one should migrate from) and still people did not migrate, then we would have a different discussion.

But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been published.

   Patrik

(*) I have now removed TXT version of the SPF record for frobbit.se to see whether the number of queries for SPF RRType go up or not.