On 23August2013Friday, at 11:04, John Levine wrote:
Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
the reasons for not deprecating SPF have been described here
and on the ietf list repeatedly ... yet there has been little
concrete data regarding deployment uptake.
Sigh. We have RFC 6686. Since this is clearly an issue you consider
to be of vital importance, it is baffling that (as far as I can tell)
you did not contribute to or even comment on it when it was being
written and published.
work assignments occasionally take me away from active engagement in
IETF matters. sorry for the few years absence.
Those of us in the mail community have a lot of anecdotal evidence,
too. Most notably, none of the large providers that dominate the mail
world publish or check type 99, and the one that used to check type 99
(Yahoo) doesn't any more. You don't have to like it, but it's silly
to deny it.
not sure why you think the DNS data presented is anecdotal. Looked
kind of empirical to me. i've not seen a yahoo person describe what
they have or have not done or why. we have no data on why Microsoft
may or may not support type 99 (see Jay's questions). Much of the
mail community data seems anecdotal… very little first hand, empirical
stuff. (and I thank you for your data)
In any event, it's purely a strawman that "nobody" checks type 99. A
few people do, the WG knows that, and we decided for well documented
reasons to deprecate it anyway.
demuxing type 16 records is a choice. using type 99, which was
specifically
designed for this use, is a choice. using application specific types
have distinct
technological advantages (see PHB comments). They may be small, but
are real
and have an impact on the DNS and the application.
regarding the specific claims regarding adoption, I was asking for a
brief period
to collect more empirical data to track the magnitude and ratio of type
99 v. type 16
use (noting, as PAF has already noted, that not all type 16 == type 99,
so for accurate
understanding - someone needs to look at type 99 muxed into a type 16
format… if only
to correctly understand the change in ratio.
the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is "is
the rate of adoption
of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
R's,
John