John,
On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:58 PM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
AFAICT, no one is arguing that overloading TXT in the
way recommended by this draft is a good idea, rather the best arguments
appear to be that it is a pragmatic
"least bad" solution to the fact that (a) people often implement (poorly)
the very least they can get away
with and (b) it can take a very long time to fix mistakes on the Internet.
Neither of those are the reason the WG dropped type 99 records.
My apologies for trying to provide a high-level summary of what I believe the
arguments to be. My understanding of the reasons the WG decided to deprecate
the SPF RR:
1) the low level of deployment of the SPF RR "both on the publishing side and
the validation side" relative to TXT RRs
This corresponds to (a): people implement/deploy TXT because it is currently
sufficient, both from what people put into their zone data as well as what
middlebox and DNS UI implementors bother supporting. I believe it is
sufficient because the migration strategy proposed in RFC 4408 was in error.
2) a "race condition" or "interoperability problem" resulting from what is
documented in RFC 6686, Appendix A, #4.
This corresponds to (b): there was a mistake in 4408 and fixing that mistake
takes a long time.
Once again, I really don't understand what the point is here.
To quote from "http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/TXT_abuse" (a page on one of the
websites referenced in RFC 6686):
"The Right Thing To Do is to get our own RRtype, and although it took a long
time to get it, we have it assigned."
Regards,
-drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail