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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hector,
At 07:16 20-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
>This doesn't seem to be correct. My apology if I don't follow or see 
>the logic.   The only real issue as it was since day zero in MARID 
>was the infrastructure support for recursive passthru queries which 
>is what RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) 
>Type).  Without this, which allows for servers to delay/plan direct 
>new RR type support yet still not error out on an unnamed type, 
>there COULD NOT be any reasonable expectation to even only suggest a 
>dual query migration approach, either in serial or parallel. It is 
>very important to consider the mindset when it was first considered 
>and written for RFC 4408 because to me, that is the mindset that has changed.

This would be a process issue then as the SPFBIS Chairs determination 
was made on the basic of the text from the SPFBIS Charter which was 
cited.  A person can raise an objection (I am okay with that as 
that's part of the work) with substantive comments to support the objection.

>I hope I am reading this incorrectly.  It may be too procedural 
>oriented to me at this point.
>
>I would like to see a simple just distinctive consensus on what the 
>entire IETF/DNS community believes is the future of DNS servers 
>offering unnamed RR type processing because that is the main barrier 
>for any kind success. We knew this as far back as MARID.  I don't 
>quite understand why this key point seems to be left out, instead 
>MARID was deemed off topic. That was an error because if there is no 
>future in unnamed RR type support, then it really doesn't matter and 
>the problem is solved. TXT only will be the only fast entry point 
>for new DNS DOMAIN policy applications.
>
>If the community still believes it possible, then clarifying and 
>codifying the SPF/TYPE lookup procedure seems to me to be the only 
>real correction to make here.

My reading of  the SPFBIS Charter is that the working group was not 
tasked to work on the future of DNS servers.  That does not mean that 
arguments about the future of DNS servers are not relevant.

There are several questions:

  (a) Was there an error in RFC 4408?

  (b) What was the error in RFC 4408?

  (c) Why was there an error in RFC 4408?

  (d) What should be done about the error?

There isn't anything that can be done about question (c) except not 
to repeat the same mistake.

Is there disagreement on the answers to questions (a) and (b)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)