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

Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> Wed, 21 August 2013 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A0711E81BA; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsjy1P75zr92; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jaja.besserwisser.org (jaja.besserwisser.org [IPv6:2a01:298:4:0:211:43ff:fe36:1299]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3108511E80ED; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by jaja.besserwisser.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 191BF9E98; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:00:56 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:00:56 +0200
From: Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: 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
Message-ID: <20130821100055.GF30516@besserwisser.org>
References: <20130819131916.22579.36328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20130819150521.GB21088@besserwisser.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20130819202422.0d1756a8@resistor.net> <52137A3B.6040200@isdg.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20130820100431.0df2aea0@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Zs/RYxT/hKAHzkfQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130820100431.0df2aea0@elandnews.com>
X-URL: http://vvv.besserwisser.org
X-Purpose: More of everything NOW!
X-happyness: Life is good.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:01:07 -0000

Subject: 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 Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S Moonesamy (sm+ietf@elandsys.c
 
> 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.

The codification of a pessimistic view of the ability of the DNS installed
base to adapt to new RRtypes is - in itself - a statement that influences
the future of DNS. That this was not completely understood in terms of
influence weight is one of the reasons for this debate.
 
> There are several questions:
> 
>  (a) Was there an error in RFC 4408?

Yes. 
 
>  (b) What was the error in RFC 4408?

The TXT rrtype was not properly decommissioned; it lacked definitiveness,
and neither publication instructions nor selection/query algorithm
satisfy this (originally intended, I suppose and believe) sunset view
of the TXT record rôle vis à vis SPF.

>  (c) Why was there an error in RFC 4408?
> 
>  (d) What should be done about the error?

4408bis needs a better defined depreciation statement for TXT,
accompanied by publication and  query methods that will ensure the
continous phasing-out of SPF data in TXT records.

A clarification here will help in making DNS UI vendors doing the right
thing. I'm quite confident that presently, the UI vendors sleep soundly
after reading 4408 and continuing to ignore SPF/99. That is not 
desirable. 
 
> 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)?

Apparently. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I'm using my X-RAY VISION to obtain a rare glimpse of the INNER
WORKINGS of this POTATO!!