Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
, "Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > The working group has created two new unaddressed issue by going the TXT
> > only.
> >
> > * how to get people who fielded only SPF records to move to TXT records
> > * how to deal with the confusion of a SPF record that isn't to be used
> >   for SPF.
> >
> > Neither of those issues are currently addressed.
> >
> >
> To the first point: If we go in the opposite direction and deprecate use of
> TXT for SPF, the community of people that needs to update is vastly
> larger.  How is that the better solution?

I hesitate to answer this because I will be told to shutup again.

Firstly no one has asked anyone to deprecate the use of TXT for SPF
but if one wanted too one could direct nameserver vendors to log
messages, refuse to load the zone or synthesis a SPF record if a
SPF/TXT record was found without a SPF/SPF record.  Code has shipped
in nameservers that logs such a message.  It logs a message when the
"SHOULD publish both" of RFC 4408 is not being met.

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.

SPF is a experimental type in RFC 4408 which definitely has some
impact on whether support for parsing SPF record was added to
nameservers.

> I don't understand what you mean by the second thing.

You have a DNS record with a mnemonic of SPF that is not to be used
for SPF.  What does the instruction "Put a SPF record in the DNS"
mean?  Will it result in a type 99 record being added?  How will
such errors be prevented?

> -MSK
> 
> --485b395e7de70c954704dde421e1
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mark Andrews <span dir=3D=
> "ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[e-mail]" target=3D"_blank">[e-mail]<=
> /a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
> te"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
> der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> The working group has created two new unaddressed issue by going the TXT<br=
> >
> only.<br>
> <br>
> * how to get people who fielded only SPF records to move to TXT records<br>
> * how to deal with the confusion of a SPF record that isn&#39;t to be used<=
> br>
> =A0 for SPF.<br>
> <br>
> Neither of those issues are currently addressed.<br>
> <div class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class=
> =3D"gmail_extra">To the first point: If we go in the opposite direction and=
>  deprecate use of TXT for SPF, the community of people that needs to update=
>  is vastly larger.=A0 How is that the better solution?<br>
> <br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I don&#39;t understand what you mean b=
> y the second thing.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">-MSK<br></div><=
> /div>
> 
> --485b395e7de70c954704dde421e1--
> 
> --===============2300023921508032151==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
> --===============2300023921508032151==--
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]