The issue Måns Nilsson raises was discussed extensively on the SPFbis
list prior to as well as during last call on the list and I believe
the appropriate decision was reached by the working group. If there is
any doubt in the minds of the IESG regarding whether the working group
reached the correct decision, I would urge those IESG members to
review the threads in the archives related to this issue.
Several related issues, including a race condition, were identified
and the solution to go with TXT only records is IMHO the correct one
under the circumstances. The relatively small uptake of Type 99
records in the wild (both on the publishing side AND on the validation
side) in comparison to the implementation for TXT records made a
compelling case for the decision of the working group.
With regard to the limitations of the working group charter, some
significant change was required to eliminate the race condition
regardless of what that change would be. The decision of the working
group (IMHO - I do not want to put words into anyones mouth) was to go
with the approach which had the least impact on what is arguably a
very large installed existing base on both the sender AND the
validator sides of implementation.
Based on this I would ask that tehe IESG move
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt to Proposed Standard.
Michael Hammer
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Måns Nilsson
<mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org> wrote:
Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:19:16AM -0700 Quoting The
IESG (iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org)
The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to
consider the following document:
- 'Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email,
Version 1'
<draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-09-02. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I strongly OPPOSE draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt being published as
RFC unless substantial parts are reworked.
* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type
is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet.
* The overloading of the TXT record is a hack at best, aimed at
circumventing DNS management systems vendors that fail to ship
support. Breaking the DNS model with specific resource records is not
the way to get better application support. (besides, the major argument
at the time was "it's so hard and takes ages to get a RR type", which
isn't true anymore and also, the RRtype is allocated, what's the fuss? )
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in that they
set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring failure.
The IESG should send draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 back to spfbis wg and tell
the wg that instead of deprecating SPF it should be algorithmically
preferred while maintaining support for TXT.
Thanks,
--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
It was a JOKE!! Get it?? I was receiving messages from DAVID LETTERMAN!!
YOW!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlISNDEACgkQ02/pMZDM1cXK+gCfYQ1Mv1CHjy9DDn7sA7DC7dF3
b48An1b49Zqf/du3dvN6pmj6in+CEujB
=soFG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
spfbis mailing list
spfbis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis