George Mitchell wrote:
XML has no place in DNS. Yet this does not necessarily make me opposed. MS
has compromized, big time. They pretty much caved in on all fronts; they
declared, before Meng, their willingness to cooperate with
integrating SPF;
and the sendmail people nodded, saying: "Everything people like
MS will do,
we will support as well;" or words to that effect.
We are at a milestone junction in time, really. MS, and other big
ones, have
extended their hand. They ask only one small favor in return: that SPF
records be written in XML. I think we should seize the moment, and get SPF
adopted across the globe, on a scale heretofore unseen. That has been our
goal all along. We are now closer than ever before. Take the moment, is my
advice; for it may not come again.
Pick up the glove now, and SPF will become the major standard for years to
come; remain obstinent, unwilling to yield even to the smallest
concession,
and MS will pursue other avenues: meaning, SPF will become
marginalized, in
favor of other standards, with other people. However strong your hand is,
always be sure not to deal yourself out of the game.
In short: I am pro introducing XML.
Another thing to consider, is that if an XML version of a record is
produced, there is nothing that ties it do being delivered by the DNS
system. It could be available through an HTTP service, an SMTP service
(which would seem most reasonable), or even a new protocol or service.
It's easy enough to parse the SPF record into an XML format. The difficult
part is how will it be served, and pointed to? I would propose a PTR record
in the SPF record to link to the XML format.
I do NOT want to see XML messing up a DNS system, nor the additional load of
processing those records from DNS servers.
Jim Britain