Re: [spfbis] Proof of non-deployment [root@primary.se: Cron <root@primary> /usr/local/libexec/spf-txt.sh]

In message <20141007164221.GF19697@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:15:49AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > 
> > Given the survey work recorded in RFC6686, I would be curious to hear
> > people's theories explaining the substantial uptick of TYPE99 queries in
> > the last two years while the industry has actually gone in the opposite
> > direction.  Of course, that presumes there's ample breadth and no bias in
> > the traffic seen by this one resolver.
> 
> We had methodological issues at the time of RFC 6686, too, so I think
> we ought to be careful about speculating too much.
> 
> But I seem to recall someone telling us, right around the time of
> 6686, that some new SPF checking code had just shipped that used
> TYPE99 as the default.  This news came too late in the publication
> cycle to change the text.  But it shouldn't be surprising that we see
> this now.

The working group got told repeatedly that they just had to wait
as new code went from being written to being deployed.  They got
given data that showed type spf queries were increasing.  They just
refused to listen and used the stupid excuse of type txt not "working"
with type spf to claim that they had to abandon the transition.

There was plenty of time to change the decision but they refused
to listen.

Transitions like this take about a decade and they abandoned the
transition early.

> None of that matters, however, because the original RFC had that
> interoperability bug in it, and the only reasonable thing to do was to
> pick one type to look up.  I'm unhappy about using TXT, too, and
> registered that unhappiness at the time.  But the deployed code is a
> strong argument.

When you jump to the end state of SPF only, of course it won't work
with TXT.  However there was nothing wrong with that.  Also there
was nothing preventing people publishing both types if they wanted
to during the transition.  There was nothing preventing the transition
continuing.

The real reason that most of the working group didn't want to move
from TXT and resented that DNS people said use a seperate type for
this and resisted changing things.

> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org