On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
The debate over the MUST/SHOULD/MAY language with regard to compliance
and publication of TXT and SPF2 record types does not seem to be
getting the attention of the full working group.
Despite lack of agreement on the outcome, there is agreement on the
stated positions. In the words of Olafur:
1) Specify everyone to be compliant at all times.
2) Specify clearly full complaint state and tolerate non-compliant
state during phase-in.
Position 1 is predicated on the notion that a future RFC will deprecate
the (use of the) TXT record in favor of the SPF2 record. Position 2
demands that the TXT record be discouraged from use in the current
-protocol document.
Rather than wordsmithing the actual MUST/SHOULD/MAY language directly
(and endlessly), we ask the participants state their preference on
these positions.
I take middle position:
1.5) Specify everyone to be compliant at all times and tolerate
non-compliance as a matter of fact (current reality) for a given
period of time (next 4 years say).
P.S. Did I hear right that next version of Windows is coming early 2006?
I assume Microsoft people present here are going to work on
making sure that it will support "unknown" and yet undefined dns data
types as well as preferably support new SPF data type directly...
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net