spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: was XML Poll

2004-05-30 15:32:32
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:03:42AM +0200, Lars B. Dybdahl wrote:
Having two data formats makes Microsoft happy, it makes SPF people 
happy and it makes it possible to merge CID and SPF.


My own bias would be to keep XML out of DNS, but I freely admit I don't have a
good technical reason for feeling that way.  I just don't see any benefit to
using it.  Fortune 1000 companies are going to use whatever widget their DNS
server provides for publishing SPF records; their admins will never see the
details of the records.  For people doing it by hand, XML is more error-prone
than a simple text string.  XML adds bloat, reduces readability, and adds
problems for no apparent gain. 

If, however, we can use XML without requiring a icense from Microsoft (or
anyone else) to implement a parser, and doing so is the price of gaining
widespread industry support for SPF, then fine, use XML.  I seem to have 
gotten old enough to realize that politics are sometimes more important than
technical considerations, and this seems to be one of those times.

However, I am strongly opposed to supporting 2 different formats, requiring 2
different parsers, for the same data, both of which have to be properly
implemented to support the spec.

If you're going to use XML, then please, please, please only use XML, and do it
in it's own RR type.  If you're going to keep the SPF-format records, then only
use the SPF-format records.  Again, a dedicated RR type would be nice, though.

-- 
Alan


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