The issue Måns Nilsson raises was discussed extensively on the SPFbis list prior to as well as during last call on the list and I believe the appropriate decision was reached by the working group. If there is any doubt in the minds of the IESG regarding whether the working group reached the correct decision, I would urge those IESG members to review the threads in the archives related to this issue. Several related issues, including a race condition, were identified and the solution to go with TXT only records is IMHO the correct one under the circumstances. The relatively small uptake of Type 99 records in the wild (both on the publishing side AND on the validation side) in comparison to the implementation for TXT records made a compelling case for the decision of the working group. With regard to the limitations of the working group charter, some significant change was required to eliminate the race condition regardless of what that change would be. The decision of the working group (IMHO - I do not want to put words into anyones mouth) was to go with the approach which had the least impact on what is arguably a very large installed existing base on both the sender AND the validator sides of implementation. Based on this I would ask that tehe IESG move draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt to Proposed Standard. Michael Hammer On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:19:16AM -0700 Quoting The IESG (iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx) >> >> The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to >> consider the following document: >> - 'Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, >> Version 1' >> <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-09-02. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > I strongly OPPOSE draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt being published as > RFC unless substantial parts are reworked. > > * The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type > is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet. > > * The overloading of the TXT record is a hack at best, aimed at > circumventing DNS management systems vendors that fail to ship > support. Breaking the DNS model with specific resource records is not > the way to get better application support. (besides, the major argument > at the time was "it's so hard and takes ages to get a RR type", which > isn't true anymore and also, the RRtype is allocated, what's the fuss? ) > > * The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which > that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in that they > set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring failure. > > The IESG should send draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 back to spfbis wg and tell > the wg that instead of deprecating SPF it should be algorithmically > preferred while maintaining support for TXT. > > Thanks, > -- > Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina > MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 > It was a JOKE!! Get it?? I was receiving messages from DAVID LETTERMAN!! > YOW!! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlISNDEACgkQ02/pMZDM1cXK+gCfYQ1Mv1CHjy9DDn7sA7DC7dF3 > b48An1b49Zqf/du3dvN6pmj6in+CEujB > =soFG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > spfbis mailing list > spfbis@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis >