First, two minor points:
... as when SPF (I do not like the name SPF2) RR ...
Several people have made this suggestion to me, on and off list. I
have seen only one argument against. Unless I hear more, I will rename
the RR type from 'SPF2' to 'SPF'.
2a.The contents of the SPF2 record and TXT record MUST be identical.
This I agree with and the current document says so (at least
that is my reading of section 2.1 paragraph 3).
But I agree with you that putting in a MUST there is a good idea.
I will add the MUST.
Then:
On Aug 28, 2004, at 7:55 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
The fundamental difference between your position and mine is
you: want everyone to be compliant at all times.
me: Specify clearly fully compliant state and tolerate non compliance
during phase-in.
I think this is a good summary of the two positions presented.
I agree with Ólafur on this, since I think this document is a standard,
not a how-to manual. The How-to's and web wizards will make it clear
to people that they need to publish the TXT form for now.
- Mark