In message <20130504225748.68DE733E7216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Andrews writes: > > In message <20130504221332.5E8DE33E70FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Andrews writes: > > > > In message <6.2.5.6.2.20130504095840.0d4a98d8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, S Moonesamy writes: > > > Hi Doug, > > > At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote: > > > >I am not saying that the WG members (or chairs) should be given the > > > >wet-noodle treatment over having reached a bad decision, but what is > > > >cross-area review for if not to catch cases where the WG echo > > > >chamber/tunnel vision/what have you -- resulted in a bad outcome? > > > > > > I'll try explain the problem as I saw it. > > > > > > (a) You should have both X and Y > > > > > > (b) You must have either X or Y > > > > > > (c) If you have X and Y they must be identical > > > > > > (d) I can ask you for either X or Y, or for both X and Y > > (e) X is only for backwards compatibility. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > S. Moonesamy > > The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing > both. > > The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking > for both. > > Both side can choose their level of interoperability. There is no > bug. Additionally it supports all implementions from pre RFC 4088 through to the desired end state of type SPF only. B.T.W. the next point releases of named (at rc2 now) warns if SHOULD have both is not being done. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx