In <ADCBD237-F26B-11D8-A105-000A95BDB38A(_at_)corp(_dot_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Tripp Cox <tripp(_at_)corp(_dot_)earthlink(_dot_)net> writes:
On Aug 20, 2004, at 12:11 AM, wayne wrote:
The creation of a minor version number was mandated during the IETF-60
session. No semantics of what the minor version number should do were
given. I've talked with both Mark and Meng about this, and we all
agree that we can't think of any use for a minor version, which was
why it wasn't there in the first place.
As SPF 2.0 is a policy that speaks only to how to deal with the PRA, I
could see a minor version being useful if additional policy classes
are added.
There is no need to use the minor version for the ability to extend
the SPF2 records to different scopes.
The current marid-protocol I-D gives the following ABNF for the
version token:
version = "spf2." ver-minor "/pra" [ ver-ext ]
ver-minor = 1*DIGIT
ver-ext = "," *VCHAR
So, things like "spf2.0/pra,mailfrom" and "spf2.0/pra,helo" are
perfectly valid.
Personally, I would *really* like to see this changed to use the
following ABNF:
version = "spf2." ver-minor "/" ver-scope *( "," ver-scope )
ver-minor = 1*DIGIT
ver-scope = "pra" / name
Where name is already defined as:
name = alpha *( alpha / digit / "-" / "_" / "." )
This would mean that SPF2 records would not *have* to be used for the
PRA. It would also allow SPF2 records to be used for SPF-classic
usage. For the vast majority of domains that have the same policies
for both the PRA usage and the SPF usage, people could publish:
SPF2 "spf2.0/spf,pra ..."
-wayne