In message <6.2.5.6.2.20130505082013.0adbbe40@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, S Moonesamy write s: > Hi Mark, > At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote: > >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. > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Based on the quoted text I would write the text as: > > (i) you must have X and Y where X and Y are identical. > > (ii) I ask you for both X and Y (see [1] for example). > > Item (i) is a combination of the previous items (a) and (c). Item > (ii) is the last part of previous item (d). That was not the intent. Having choice here is very important here. In fact it is essential to reach the end goal of Y only when starting with X only. There is nothing wrong with failing to catch every possible forgery possible if both sides are using SPF. Unfortunately the SPF WG seem to think that unless the RFC does catch every possible forgery that it is broken. The SPF WG appears to not want to allow operators to have the choice. This is the case "pefect" being the enemy of "good enough". We need "good enough" here not "perfect". Mark > At 16:26 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote: > >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. > > Noted. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79114.html > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx