On Aug 24, 2004, at 1:25 AM, Mark Lentczner wrote:
On Aug 23, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Jim Lyon wrote:
I believe that the latest Protocol draft
(draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03)
contains changes that don't correctly reflect the consensus of the
group
concerning DNS record types.
The changes you cited were all made in response to review by the
people of DNS-EXT. In particular, Olafur Gudmundsson, co-chair of
DNS-EXT provided much of the wording you see verbatim. He and I
discussed the changes and in particular the very points you bring up.
He said he'd like to see this version of the wording go to last call,
and that he'd be willing to be involved in discussions.
My comment about the current wording is that either senders or
receivers who do not implement the "MAY" clauses are acting against
their own best interests. This is misleading at best. As a sender, I am
going to publish all record types that receivers might look up as soon
as I can. As a receiver who is interested in discarding as much forgery
as possible as quickly as possible, I'm going to look up whatever
records I can look up as quickly as I can.
As a practical matter, I'll be publishing and checking TXT records very
shortly, and the SPF2 record type at some point in the future. As the
spec is written, a new reader has to study carefully and work this out
for themselves. This is not helpful to the email community and it will
slow down adoption.
I am strongly in favor of Sender ID, and would like to see it deployed
as quickly as possible.
Margaret.