On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 03:32:32PM -0700, Alan Hodgson wrote:
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
I'm against the XML version as well. Not only does it make life more
difficult for people wanting to check against SPF, it makes writing the
records more difficult too (IMNSHO). And oh, since the records will be
bigger, there's a larger portion of records that will need DNS to switch
to TCP mode instead of UDP, thus slowing down the whole process.
Overall, the arguments seem to be: it's bloated/overkill/patent-laden
vs it's extensible/standard.
If the potential benefits outweigh the apparent costs, then so be it.
I don't think they do, but...
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.
Ditto. A standard with 2 different formats isn't much of a standard IMHO.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Oh, well; I'll work next week." - Peter Sagerson
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
The Inbox Event at the Marriott San Jose features SPF.
June 2: Email Accountability Symposium (free)
June 3: SPF Strategy BOF (free) where industry will coordinate deployment
timeline
Times: 6:30pm - 8pm, both sessions. http://www.inboxevent.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
pgpbw0kVzZDez.pgp
Description: PGP signature