Hi Hector,
At 14:10 19-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
I'm having a hard time with both sides of the argument, especially
the supposed existence of an "interop problem" which seems to only
highlight how to "procedurally" stump the SPF type advocates with a
"error correction" standpoint. What is that error by the way?
In a message dated February 27, 2012, the SPFBIS Chairs commented
that the discussion about Issue #9 (SPF RRTYPE) has revealed an
interoperability concern in the existing RFC (4408).
From RFC 6686:
"RFC 4408 itself included a faulty transition plan, likely because of
the late addition of a requirement to develop one -- it said:
An SPF-compliant domain name SHOULD have SPF records of both RR
types. A compliant domain name MUST have a record of at least
one type.
which means both can claim to be fully compliant while failing
utterly to interoperate."
The consensus of the SPFBIS WG was that this is an interoperability
issue and it would have to be corrected. That is what was considered
as an error correction.
I don't believe there was an adequate answer from the advocates of
removing the SPF RR type and the repeated assertion that its been
discussed at length has not been convincing it was appropriately
addressed. It all seem to be a "Shut up" approach to the problem
(always suggest that its been discussed already). This seems to be
one of the reasons why the issue will not go away.
I personally do not think that it is appropriate to ask any working
group participant to "shut up". I welcome hearing arguments and I
expect a working group to carefully consider them.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)