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

[Jelte Jansen <[e-mail]>]

On 08/26/2013 04:08 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> 
> Could you point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that the odd
> history of the SPF TXT record means that it is perfectly fine to do
> something similar in the future?
> 

Three of the four points on the list that triggered my first message in
this particular thread were:

- no <this new rrtype> support in my provisioning system
- no <this new rrtype> support in my firewall
- no <this new rrtype> support in my DNS Library

Those aren't things that'll magically disappear, even with universal
deployment of 3597.

Some, and maybe all of these, might be generally solved if
draft-levine-dnsextlang takes off, though I have serious doubts about
the second, and some doubts about the first.

Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that
the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent
and best practice, rather than hope that this is implicit.


> On the other hand, please look at all of the stuff that people outside
> of the IETF do with apex TXT records, and try and say with a straight
> face that SPF as as much as 1% of the multiplexing problem.
> 

There may be a reason those are not standardized. And not just because
there are too many grumpy people here shouting 'get off my lawn'. Or at
least not all of them :)

Jelte