IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 30 May 2013 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.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 C3C2721F95EB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5zohZ2QwWzZg for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FBB21F9579 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B1EC9428; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:43:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1369896236; bh=15wKR7y34T/yPASUlsinHcP99NVmhBABWYAotzcS1ZY=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=aS+J/m5MwFKDroc/QmKIDqtU0CMVH8meM9zo6S/C1rNQm42tIwPTU4V12fUpQsBGw jdDE4gwW0vGsfok1GVaccgcwMyvCahw0NAdstR0VtZsQYzyXzGSYk+0Bnn+bx9Jh9Y vkNhM4+6tYyzu/iCxK+bmQrj6U9SgEZ9hfdJcVbA=
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:43:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-172-21.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.172.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58F99216C40; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:43:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7DE34EC657; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:43:41 +1000 (EST)
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.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>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 May 2013 22:41:48 -0700." <CAL0qLwaMoeyoNUkTwhF-N3c+rwhBo2r_H_7WrJ-RQnyFe2KhQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:43:41 +1000
Message-Id: <20130530064341.9F7DE34EC657@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)
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 06:43:57 -0000

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.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email