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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
At 23:37 06-10-2014, Mans Nilsson wrote:
>Since only 14.82 percent of the combined TXT||SPF queries received by my
>authoritative master are SPF we must surely congratulate the SPF working
>group in being correct by determining that there are impassable barriers
>to deplying new RR types on the Internet. Only 1 in 7 queries  --
>clearly a minority -- are for this new, unusable RR type.

The following is from the write-up:

    "There was an intermediate conclusion about the topic of whether the SPF
     protocol should use the SPF RRTYPE or the TXT resource record.  It was
     followed by an objection.  After discussion of the topic at the IETF 83
     SPFBIS WG session the conclusion reached was that the decision would be
     not to publish RRTYPE 99 and and not to query RRTYPE 99.  The WG
     consensus about the RRTYPE can be described as particularly rough.  The
     topic of obsoleting the SPF RRTYPE generated a lot of controversy near
     the end of the WGLC.  There were a very high number of messages about
     the topic on the SPFBIS mailing list and the DNSEXT mailing list as some
     DNSEXT WG participants were not aware of RFC 6686."

The decision about which RR type to choose was not about one of them 
being clearly a minority.  I went through the discussions about the 
RR Type several times.  I also did that after the decision was taken 
to see whether it was the wrong choice.  A choice had to be made.  I 
am okay with being criticized for that choice.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy