Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support

Hi Hector,
At 06:30 20-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
> I have a few questions and points:
>
> May I ask why was the above was not an area for clarification as 
> oppose as the presumed stated technical reason for removal?
The SPFBIS WG had a session at IETF 83.  The minutes for that session 
is at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-spfbis.txt 
Item C on the agenda is about "SPF RR Type and TXT RR (issue 
#9)".  Andrew Sullivan, as SPFBIS Chair, explained that:
  'The were people on the mailing list in favor of using the TXT RR
   appeared to be a modest majority and there were people who argued
   for SPF RR Type on the grounds of DNS hygiene.  The Chair explained
   that it appears as an empirical matter, overwhelmingly, the TXT RR
   is used but RRTYPE 99 does not qualify under the unused provision
   of the SPFBIS charter.'

Pete Resnick, as Area Director, commented that:

  'the deal with the IESG, as a general statement, the working can removed
   what is unused and put in what is widely deployed. He pointed out that
   saying that TXT RR is part of an experiment is contrary to the agreement
   made with the IESG.  His opinion is that either way, the proposal is stuck
   with TXT RR and that it is not an issue.  The only issue is whether the
   proposal can remove the SPF RRTYPE as unused.'

On February 26, 2012, Barry Leiba, as a participant, posted a message 
( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00654.html ) 
which I will quote:
  "These two statements make a pretty compelling case that there is, indeed,
   an error in RFC4408.  There are, of course, multiple ways to resolve it,
   and I have no immediate opinion on which is best."

My opinion, as one of the SPFBIS WG Chairs, was that there was an 
error.  As Barry Leiba mentioned, there were several possible ways to 
fix that.  The SPFBIS Chair stated at the meeting that:
  "The conclusion reached by the Chair was that the document will say
   SHOULD NOT publish RRTYPE 99 and MUST NOT query RRTYPE 99."

That statement was posted to the SPFBIS mailing list ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01369.html 
).  Nobody disagreed.

> There was adequate information for the expected and original optimal 
> migration plan but it could of been further codified and clarified. 
> It would of been on par with BIS level of work.  Issue #9 should not 
> have been a reason for removal.  I reported issue #25 [1] regarding 
> the complexity of the recommended parallel processing approach.  I 
> believe most folks agreed the ideal and optimal migration approach was:
>     Query SPF type first,
>     Fallback to TXT secord.
>
> It was common sense, at least to me.
Both Issue #9 and Issue #25 (see SPFBIS tracker)  were 
well-discussed.  Was every technical point carefully considered?  I 
don't think so as it is possible that a technical point may have been 
missed.  There is an opportunity for anyone to comment during the 
Last Call if the person believes that a technical point has been 
missed or was not addressed appropriately by the working group.  In 
my opinion the SPFBIS WG carefully considered all the comments which 
were made in reaching its decision.
> Second, I was under the impression interop reports (RFC 6686) were 
> not making any conclusions or recommendations?  Is that a correct 
> basic understanding of interop reports?  They were observations, 
> collection of available data and while it might be eventually used 
> to rethink a protocol design, I don't think the above RFC 4408 
> statement is a serious "error" in the functional description to 
> justify removal. There are other parts of 4408 which helped clarify 
> the migration path.
From the Introduction Section of RFC 6686:

  "In line with the IESG's request to evaluate after a period of time,
   this document concludes the experiments by presenting evidence
   regarding both deployment and comparative effect of the two
   protocols.  At the end, it presents conclusions based on the data
   collected."

In my opinion RFC 6686 does make conclusions (see Section 6 of RFC 
6686).  There is some background information about the RRTYPE issue 
in Appendix A.
> But overall, a correction (not removal) would of suffice. It would 
> of been on par for BIS-like corrections and protocol updates.
Andrew Sullivan, as SPFBIS WG Chair, mentioned that "We have to do 
_something_, though any action would introduce a backward 
incompatibility ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03595.html ).
> Third, I believe removal required a more deeper IETF discussion 
> about the initial presumed engineering expectation that DNS servers 
> (all top DNS servers, including and especially Microsoft DNS 
> servers) would eventually directly support a new registered SPF type 
> or at the very least support RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown DNS 
> Resource Record (RR) Type) [2].
There were comments about RFC 3567 during the working group 
discussions (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00545.html 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00820.html ).
> If this is no longer the expectation, then it would make sense to 
> remove the SPF type but also be aware that in general, this will 
> also  nix (not help) any future idea for successfully adopting new RR types.
> It would be added statement that TXT based applications are 
> acceptable.  I think the DNS community continues to have a problem with this.
Noted.

> SM, Pete, thank you for the opportunity to clarify my point. For the 
> record, there was no intent to imply it occurred but quite frankly 
> when it is repeatedly stated, this deeply divided issue has not be 
> resolved at any point,  it does have an intimidation factor.  As Mr. 
> Crocker stated, the burden is on the those who oppose the removal. 
> But my question was always why was the decision made to remove in 
> the first place done when in fact it was quite obvious it would not 
> have industry wide endorsement. The burden should of been to justify 
> removal. Now it has become difficult to effectively add it back. 
> This is why I posed the question in two forums to get community 
> input over the last few years. It was quite obvious to me that the 
> DNS community would be against this removal.  So in this vain, it 
> was prematurely removed in the WG without early IETF/IESG/DNS 
> concerns adequately dealt with.  Unfortunately, we were advise to 
> raise the issue again in LC, but by that point, all the IETF 
> procedural moves were made making it it a very high burden to add 
> something that should not been removed in the first place.
There are two SPFBIS WG Chairs.  The way we work is: I read the 
mailing list messages, the other Chair reads the mailing list 
messages, each chair reaches his own conclusion and we discuss about 
it.  Once the Chairs agree a message is posted to the WG mailing 
list.  Let's assume that the Chairs did not carefully consider the 
comments or their determination was incorrect.  There is a Last Call 
where the matter can be raised again.  That is the advice that was 
given.  There is indeed a high burden as the person raising the issue 
again will have to read the mailing list messages to determine 
whether they have been carefully considered.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)