Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
In message
<6(_dot_)2(_dot_)5(_dot_)6(_dot_)2(_dot_)20130505082013(_dot_)0adbbe40(_at_)elandnews(_dot_)com>,
S
Moonesamy write
s:
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking
for both.
Both side can choose their level of interoperability. There is no
bug.
Thanks for the feedback.
Based on the quoted text I would write the text as:
(i) you must have X and Y where X and Y are identical.
(ii) I ask you for both X and Y (see [1] for example).
Item (i) is a combination of the previous items (a) and (c). Item
(ii) is the last part of previous item (d).
That was not the intent. Having choice here is very important here.
In fact it is essential to reach the end goal of Y only when starting
with X only.
There is nothing wrong with failing to catch every possible forgery
possible if both sides are using SPF. Unfortunately the SPF WG
seem to think that unless the RFC does catch every possible forgery
that it is broken. The SPF WG appears to not want to allow operators
to have the choice. This is the case "pefect" being the enemy of
"good enough". We need "good enough" here not "perfect".
Mark
If we publish a 4408bis that suggests the normal way to publish an SPF record
is in type SPF, then it'll get about 98% less effective based on the data we've
collected. What you are suggesting is more like 'ignore the deployed base and
start over'. That's not wgat the WG was chartered to do.
Additionally, I'm personally against publishing documents that require special
external knowledge (if 4408bis prefers SPF over TXT deployers will have know to
ignore that part of the RFC if they actually want the protocol to be useful. To
promote interoperability there has to be a MUST publish and a MUST check format
in common. Given the lack of type SPF deployment, it's crazy to suggest that
it should be the required type.
Scott K
At 16:26 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
Additionally it supports all implementions from pre RFC 4088 through
to the desired end state of type SPF only.
B.T.W. the next point releases of named (at rc2 now) warns if SHOULD
have both is not being done.
Noted.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79114.html