ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records

2004-09-04 12:45:49


On Sep 3, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
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.

My preference is for position 2.

I am also strongly against other options with explicit phase-in periods and sunset-dates. As has been eloquently argued by Doug Crocker, such language in RFCs has a bad track record of working out, and so is best dispensed with.

Options which drop the new SPF2 RR type altogether are not likely to sit well with the rest of the IETF community, specifically the DNS-EXT folks. The will reasonably argue that DNS has a well designed extension mechanism in the allocation of RR types, and it should be used, rather than overloading the TXT type.

Options which drop the TXT RR type are not practical as there are some significant barriers to using a new RR type in some software environments.

        - Mark

Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com