ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [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

2013-08-21 12:21:26


Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrik,

First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table. However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening. What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic, even so.  The *hard*
part about this was supposed to be implementation of the record in the
application software.  Can the shepherd answer this question:

  * To what extent has that happened?

The easy part was supposed to be people actually using the SPF record,
once it was out there.  And so your data doesn't indicate what sort of
answers you're getting.

Eliot, we will add SPF type support in our implementation once the infrastructure is ready. For us, as a windows shop, namely Microsoft DNS servers.

So the better question I believe would be:

    If the DNS servers begin to support RFC 3597, would you add
    or enable SPF type99 support?  Would you support new RR types
    based on this support presumption?

Of course, the existing base would be low or marginal simply because for optimization and lower overhead reasons, it was not added or disabled in existing packages.

But I believe the interest was and still is there to support in general new RR types once the infrastructure is ready, especially in the DNS community. The question to ask is if it is reasonable to believe DNS servers will be improved to support this industry desire or need. If not, then its reasonable to remove SPF type in RFC 4408bis, and for that matter, forget about all future new RR type proposals. TXT will be the fast entry record of choice. All recent mail related DNS protocols have been TXT, including the new DMARC and I don't see that changing (the same folks are producing them).

--
HLS


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>