Re: [spfbis] [dnsext] Obsoleting SPF RRTYPE

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Doug,
At 18:30 25-04-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
>Note, I'm going to push back on some of the things you say below, 
>but I don't want the main point I'm trying to make to get lost:
>
>1. It's not too late to do the right thing,
>2. So we should do that.

I'll comment below.

>There are only so many times that people can say "this is a bad 
>idea," then get ignored, and then have enthusiasm to come back and 
>say the same thing again. I didn't follow the

Ok.

>  pre-publication of 6686, as I had other things to do at the time. 
> However the volume of previous discussion over the last 8+ years 
> should have been sufficient to render the idea of deprecating the 
> SPF RRtype a non-starter. The fact that the draft got written in 
> the first place said a lot about the chances of any objections 
> being considered.

When the work started nobody knew what to do.  The following comment 
was made around a year ago:

   "the IESG would simply like to see the SPF *and* Sender-ID 
experiments wrapped
    up, and presumes that the charter is correct and the outcome of 
the experiment
    leads one to conclude that SPF should get advanced to Proposed Standard and
    Sender-ID should not".

In easy terms, it would be good to have a conclusion to those 
experiments.  There was an assumption, i.e. SPF would get 
advanced.  My guess (not technically sound) was that there was a 
higher chance of that happening (e.g. see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00355.html 
).  There is a short discussion predating Issue #9 
(see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00329.html 
).  Philip Gladstone provided some data (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00354.html 
).  Issue #9 was opened based on the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00361.html 
draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment was posted after that (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00405.html 
).  There were comments mentioning the ietf@ discussion ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00789.html ).

Anyway, the working group decision about the protocol aspect was made 
based on the analysis.  The question of whether to obsolete the SPF 
RRTYPE or not is an administrative issue.  That is why it is in the 
IANA Considerations Section of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14.  I am ok 
with whatever the IETF decides about that.

There are several intermingled issues.  If I understood correctly the 
main issue is which DNS RR to use to publish SPF information in the 
DNS.  I suggest discussing about that during the Last Call for 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.

>I have to respectfully point out that a) there is a wider world 
>beyond spfbis, and b) the reasoned technical arguments that were 
>presented on the list (not to mention the running code) should have 
>been sufficient to push the group in the direction of preferring the 
>SPF RRtype with an eye toward deprecating TXT in the future.

I am aware of that. :-)  There isn't much I can do about it.  My task 
was to give due consideration to all the arguments that were 
presented on this mailing list.  Technical arguments are obviously 
more compelling.

If there are any new arguments which have been missed please let me 
know as I can include them in my write-up.  If the argument is solely 
"do the right thing" I will decline including it in the write-up as 
it is, in my individual opinion, non-technical.  I cannot comment on 
what arguments should be provided as I will then be biasing the outcome.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy