Re: [secdir] [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

My point was a quibble, no more. The intent was clear enough to me and it
is hard to imagine an implementer of code making a blunder if their code is
timing out too often on real records they will raise their limits. A person
writing records might however.

I can see that attempting to clarify this point might add more confusion as
John Levine pointed out. In fact that was the main concern I had with the
document as a whole. I think it is done as well as it is going to be at
this point.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:14 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
> At 11:58 23-05-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> Greater clarity would have been achieved by separating transactions
>> involving the SPF checkhost process (spfch-transactions) which may then
>> generate some number of recursive dns server transactions
>> (rdns-transactions).
>>
>> A transaction made at the spfch level will result in some number of
>> transactions at the rdns level, which could then be described as
>> representing some number of separate DNS queries.
>>
>> Confusion has been caused by conflating checkhost and recursive DNS
>> transactions with that of non-recursive DNS which may involve dozens of
>> unique queries to resolve any particular resource.  This is bad and is a
>> continuing source of confusion.
>>
>
> What I noted among other things in the review was "the only quibble" and
> "it is reasonably clear".
>
>
>  A practical means to simplify SPF's impact on a receiver's DNS is to
>> first ignore SPF records containing macro expressions.  This happens and
>> this may explain the nearly 100% lack of macro use.  They then limit the
>> number of SPF resource records and MX mechanisms and ignore the PTR
>> mechanism.  Appreciate what receivers consider a reasonable demand on their
>> resources that offers cache-able results.
>>
>
> I don't see any relation between the security directorate review (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/spfbis/current/**msg03679.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03679.html>) to the above (quoted paragraph).  If the security directorate reviewer is
> of the opinion that it is related to his review I will ask the SPFBIS to
> comment about the matter.
>
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/