On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
A mail-sending domain indicates that it is participating by
publishing
certain DNS RR's.
Crucially, a mail-sending domain cannot opt in to the SPF experiment
without also opting in to the senderid experiment. This renders any
claimed results of either experiment suspect.
RIght again.
In any case, I support this appeal to the extent that I believe the
conflicts
need to be resolved prior to publication. I take no position on the
means
by which the conflict is resolved as long as a resolution is reached.
As with any conflict, there are two parties involved. In this case,
the SPF group has essentially ignored potential conflicts by
neglecting to include support for a subsequent version of the DNS
record. This newer record explicitly expresses the intended scope.
At the MAAWG meeting in Dusseldorf, Julian suggested SPF developers
would only consider use of the newer DNS record version provided
Sender-ID abdicated use of the initial version of the record. Sender-
ID supports both versions. An appeal was made for the SPF group to
consider supporting the newer version of the record as a solution for
avoiding this conflict. This suggested use of the record is part of
interim advice on the MAAWG website. It would appear this appeal
reflects a decisions to remain intransigent.
http://www.maawg.org/about/whitepapers/spf_sendID/
A condition that Sender-ID abdicate the use of the scope-less version
of the record is puzzling, as once the newer record is also adopted
by SPF, the claimed conflict is resolved. Meng Wong, an author of
both drafts, explained the conflict in his white paper by indicating
the SPF draft was for historical purposes and suggested Sender-ID
embraced both semantics. Sender-ID's use of the initial version of
the DNS record will create problems should the publisher of the
record intend the semantics to exclude Sender-ID. The methods
suggested by the Sender-ID draft to circumvent their semantics could
negatively impact the publisher.
This conflict is not accidental or without a simple solution, but
rather based upon a desire to withdraw Sender-ID semantics in a manor
that negatively impacts the Sender-ID effort. I am _not_ a proponent
of Sender-ID. While the merging of semantics was initially
considered acceptable by the MARID WG, the desire to now exclude the
Sender-ID semantics is primarily due to subsequent licensing
notifications. At that time so long ago, the technical solution to
allow the record publisher to formally indicate their desired
semantics was to change the version of the record that provided the
requisite scoping parameters.
Rather than adopting this solution, the SPF group insists anyone that
published the initial version of this record only intended to support
SPF and not Sender-ID. This would be a difficult conclusion
following any number of gatherings where email administrators have
subsequently and repeatedly been provided information that indicated
this initial record version supports both, and that the subsequent
record versions can be used to isolate the scope of the record.
While this conflict should be resolved, without evidence that Sender-
ID has fallen out of favor, which the stance by the SPF group
prohibits, the obvious solution would likely be for the SPF group to
finally adopt the newer record version.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf