Mark Andrews <marka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >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 If we publish a 4408bis that suggests the normal way to publish an SPF record is in type SPF, then it'll get about 98% less effective based on the data we've collected. What you are suggesting is more like 'ignore the deployed base and start over'. That's not wgat the WG was chartered to do. Additionally, I'm personally against publishing documents that require special external knowledge (if 4408bis prefers SPF over TXT deployers will have know to ignore that part of the RFC if they actually want the protocol to be useful. To promote interoperability there has to be a MUST publish and a MUST check format in common. Given the lack of type SPF deployment, it's crazy to suggest that it should be the required type. Scott K >> 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 >>