John, On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:58 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> AFAICT, no one is arguing that overloading TXT in the >> way recommended by this draft is a good idea, rather the best arguments appear to be that it is a pragmatic >> "least bad" solution to the fact that (a) people often implement (poorly) the very least they can get away >> with and (b) it can take a very long time to fix mistakes on the Internet. > > Neither of those are the reason the WG dropped type 99 records. My apologies for trying to provide a high-level summary of what I believe the arguments to be. My understanding of the reasons the WG decided to deprecate the SPF RR: 1) the low level of deployment of the SPF RR "both on the publishing side and the validation side" relative to TXT RRs This corresponds to (a): people implement/deploy TXT because it is currently sufficient, both from what people put into their zone data as well as what middlebox and DNS UI implementors bother supporting. I believe it is sufficient because the migration strategy proposed in RFC 4408 was in error. 2) a "race condition" or "interoperability problem" resulting from what is documented in RFC 6686, Appendix A, #4. This corresponds to (b): there was a mistake in 4408 and fixing that mistake takes a long time. > Once again, I really don't understand what the point is here. To quote from "http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/TXT_abuse"; (a page on one of the websites referenced in RFC 6686): "The Right Thing To Do is to get our own RRtype, and although it took a long time to get it, we have it assigned." Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail