IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 9272A11E8306; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 auiyXffX+CXY; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0D211E8186; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUhK1QrfikoBIor7fjl2JxChARSKJZjrT@postini.com; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:02 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD891B827D; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1200A19006C; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:16:02 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support
Thread-Index: AQHOnSEdAUqJkK3Ia0WBBOtw9V8i3Jmdr/wA
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:16:01 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077525C6EC@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <20130819131916.22579.36328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20130819150521.GB21088@besserwisser.org> <20130819200802.GI19481@mx1.yitter.info> <521284A4.4050901@qti.qualcomm.com> <521289C3.9070500@isdg.net>
In-Reply-To: <521289C3.9070500@isdg.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <1902D2A849168A468FAF5616FEF2AF84@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<spfbis@ietf.org>" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>, "<ietf@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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:16:14 -0000

On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote:
> This will allow coders to add the optimized logic for usage.  It will also allow for new problem solving seeds to be laid down. It will hopefully get the DNS software vendors to finally add direct support for unnamed TYPE support (query and passthru) not only for SPF but for future DNS application protocols.

It would help if you would go review the working group discussion on this point; if you had done so, I do not believe you could make this point with a straight face, because it was soundly refuted by the working group.   I tried to make the same point to the working group, and they successfully argued me around.   Although I'm sure you're aware that I am quite stubborn, it's possible that they would not succeed in arguing you around as they did me.  But you ought at least to do us the service of allowing them to try by reviewing the discussion yourself.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email