Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic

Stuart D Gathman <stuart@gathman.org> Thu, 30 May 2013 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=7TApp=PP==stuart@gathman.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB2921F8AF7 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 mRU-BJG33jrn for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gathman.org (gathman.marcomm.net [IPv6:2001:470:8:688::10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74F821F89C3 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mail.gathman.org; auth=pass (PLAIN sslbits=256) smtp.auth=stuart
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gathman.org; i=@gathman.org; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1369932968; h=Message-ID : Date : From : MIME-Version : To : Subject : References : In-Reply-To : Content-Type : Content-Transfer-Encoding : Date : From : Subject; bh=aA9eYFcU8xKC/sW9bwoW7HhXg+eB5y76CmcuxL2ZcVk=; b=Ani2opUbwNupf8o7QQWJXjS9xdCN/IgGQp8Pd1mNhT6g+uAsoqdLviAM0FfKQijkRWNr1f l9WCwSnvSf6niwV00AmsMXXe8f8pSU4mFUzle3oYlc1vc1IrK25OflzoqfxjStAfElWjnWzV LqXw4yjZSms7CX0SmAH9Y7DCQ/FVg=
Received: from sdg.bmsi.com ([IPv6:2001:470:8:488:ac33:8e64:343:987d]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.gathman.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4UGtxQ1016995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 12:56:08 -0400
Message-ID: <51A7847B.1090303@gathman.org>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:54:58 -0400
From: Stuart D Gathman <stuart@gathman.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <A022755E-F8B8-4C82-9F1C-73B8585193BF@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130528130858.0db81cd0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwan7JO4t2UB1uWYwwf1MmwhY56szenSY7awT_pNP5UjLg@mail.gmail.com> <B6A88D56-9318-40A3-8E0C-A49EE37A3F3F@gmail.com> <20130529143635.GZ23227@verdi> <CD0B53CE-E90E-4296-B724-0749361D7626@gmail.com> <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529212602.5909734DBABF@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20130529214234.GB9584@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529220822.2326134DBF6E@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CAL0qLwa2Eh_tbSHCULhUGALf_hNOmOW01HA6pPgVPfDK2YMEhA@mail.gmail.com> <20130530003906.6983934DF471@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CAL0qLwaMoeyoNUkTwhF-N3c+rwhBo2r_H_7WrJ-RQnyFe2KhQw@mail.gmail.com> <20130530064341.9F7DE34EC657@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130530064341.9F7DE34EC657@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:14:03 -0000

On 05/30/2013 02:43 AM, Mark Andrews expounded in part:
> In message <CAL0qLwaMoeyoNUkTwhF-N3c+rwhBo2r_H_7WrJ-RQnyFe2KhQw@mail.gmail.com>
> , "Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> As for numbers the survey was taken *very* early in a transition
>>> from TXT to SPF.  SPF record have doubled as a percentage since the
>>> initial survey was taken.
>>>
>>>
>> RFC4408 was published in 2006, and SPF had been in extra-IETF development
>> for a while before that.  RFC6686 was published less than a year ago.  I
>> don't see how you can characterize that as "early".
> In a project that I would expect to take 15+ years years to complete
> yes it was early.  For a project where the SPF propronent took until
> 2008 to issue new library code that made type 99 lookups.  Nameserver
> vendors incorporated SPF support faster than the SPF propronent.
> Then it required MTA vendors/package maintainers to use the new
> code.  There wasn't even one hardware replacement cycle allowed
> for.  It takes OS vendors years to integrate new nameserver code
> into their releases.
>
> TXT to SPF transition was never going to be quick.  It has/had a
> timescale similar to A to MX only domain adoption.  As far as I
> could see the transition was roughly where I exected it to be.  If
> the SPF working group had wanted a faster transition they should
> have set development milestones and requested that nameservers
> vendors log missing type 99 records etc.
>
> Changing things in the DNS takes a lot of time.  This is something
> DNS developers know and accept.
+1

4408bis makes a provision to endorse caching negative and error results 
for up to 24 hours.  *That* (not throwing away the SPF record) is the 
solution to the broken nameserver problem.  When you query SPF, and the 
request times out due to broken firewalls, broken nameserver, or 
whatever, then cache the result.

If anything, it is time to remove the dual publishing (both TXT and 
SPF), and the administration/consistency problems that causes.