ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The problem with Unified SPF

2004-07-01 16:55:25

At 12:16 AM +0100 7/2/04, Roy Badami wrote:

I was simply suggesting that if this WG chooses to advance a proposal
based on both the marid-core and marid-csv drafts, there is an
argument for using a consistent record syntax for both aspects.


There is an important design question here--the tradeoff between the
advantage of  reusing a single parser and the disadvantage of
lockstep development in what may be two very different axes of
extension.   The choices need not be quite so binary, of course;
they range from "Use ASN.1 for 1 and XML for 2" to "Every feature
needed by is shared in a common parser and a protocol MUST".
If the working group does decide it would be an advantage to
have consistent record syntax, I think there needs to be an
explicit statement of what level of consistency is at issue.

As an aside, in an earlier message, Meng suggested using the same syntax in
several contexts (HELO, PRA, and PTR, if I recall correctly), but with
different semantics in each context.  Speaking personally, this does
not strike me as optimal design, as it could easily result in confusion
for both those developing the code and deploying the records.  I think
that form of reuse would need very careful thought indeed.

Again, speaking personally,
                        regards,
                                Ted Hardie