On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:00:56 Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: [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: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S > Moonesamy (sm+ietf@elandsys.c > > My reading of the SPFBIS Charter is that the working group was not > > tasked to work on the future of DNS servers. That does not mean > > that arguments about the future of DNS servers are not relevant. > > The codification of a pessimistic view of the ability of the DNS installed > base to adapt to new RRtypes is - in itself - a statement that influences > the future of DNS. That this was not completely understood in terms of > influence weight is one of the reasons for this debate. > > > There are several questions: > > (a) Was there an error in RFC 4408? > > Yes. > > > (b) What was the error in RFC 4408? > > The TXT rrtype was not properly decommissioned; it lacked definitiveness, > and neither publication instructions nor selection/query algorithm > satisfy this (originally intended, I suppose and believe) sunset view > of the TXT record rôle vis à vis SPF. > > > (c) Why was there an error in RFC 4408? > > > > (d) What should be done about the error? > > 4408bis needs a better defined depreciation statement for TXT, > accompanied by publication and query methods that will ensure the > continous phasing-out of SPF data in TXT records. > > A clarification here will help in making DNS UI vendors doing the right > thing. I'm quite confident that presently, the UI vendors sleep soundly > after reading 4408 and continuing to ignore SPF/99. That is not > desirable. > > > There isn't anything that can be done about question (c) except not > > to repeat the same mistake. > > > > Is there disagreement on the answers to questions (a) and (b)? > > Apparently. Translated: RFC 4408 was in error because it didn't abandon it's installed base. I gather this is an error you propose to rectify. Scott K