After reading this:
On Sep 3, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
I am not sure how #1 differs from #2? Are you suggesting that if we
adopt position #1, someone not having SPF RR records would be ignored?
My interpretation of the thread is "might be ignored".
I did not infer that implication myself.
And after careful consideration I am going to have to change my vote to (2), I
cannot accept
condoning of ignoring published SPF records (regardless of RR type).
Sorry for any confusion.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:43 PM
To: 'Andrew Newton'; 'IETF MARID WG'
Subject: RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records
I vote for position 1, future RFC should deprecate TXT record
AFTER a SPF RR is approved and
implemented in DNS servers.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Andrew
Newton
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:34 PM
To: IETF MARID WG
Subject: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records
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.
-your co-chairs