On Aug 20, 2004, at 8:48 AM, wayne wrote:
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 / "-" / "_" / "." )
I agree. Implementors may want to use SPF2 records for a number of
reasons, which may or may not include PRA policy expression. If one
explicitly desires to not publish a PRA policy (e.g. for IPR reasons)
and still use SPF2, such usage may break implementations expecting the
presently-defined SPF2.0 version records.
How would you propose that we handle changes made to the SPF record
directives and/or syntax? Let's say, for example, that the macro
language is extended. In this case, legacy SPF2.0 parsers could be
confused when encountering unexpected macro strings. Would we address
that by making an increase in the major version number?
Would it still be useful for the publisher to somehow advertise which
scopes its record does/does not support, or is the mere presence or
absence of them in the record sufficient?
In any case, I see no harm in leaving in the minor version number.
Perhaps we'll never need it, but it is easier to put it in now than
later.
Tripp