Mandag den 31. maj 2004 20:12 skrev Meng Weng Wong:
Putting an expiration date into an RFC is a pretty radical
move, though. I don't know if it's been done before.
Very bad idea. You basically create something unstable - remember when
Microsoft expired all ActiveX signatures? They basically killed
ActiveX as the basic component of the internet, nobody dared to
invest in it any more.
TCP/IP is not the best protocol around. If the best technology had
won, we would all use ATM by now. TCP/IP just has this tiny little
advantage of being there first. TCP/IP is awful from so many points
of view, it's unbelievable. People are still struggling to do good
telephony over TCP/IP, whereas realtime traffic is built into the ATM
protocol just from its birth.
Many people believed, that ATM would take over the world, so until
2001 or so, the largest internet provider around here were still
deploying ATM network equipment everywhere, and IP was just a layer
on top of ATM. At last they had to give up, and replaced ATM ADSL
connections with the much more primitive Ethernet-based ADSL
connections, and they probably even changed their backbone to not
using ATM everywhere. What about X.400 and X.500?
SPF version 1 is very well designed as an addon to the existing
infrastructure. It has most of the elements that made TCP/IP, SMTP,
HTTP etc. win. The Microsoft approach, however, has a lot of elements
that it shares with technologies that we have forgotten about for a
long time - the XML approach is one of them. I still remember the
discussions about whether to use X.400/X.500 or whether to use
SMTP/internet e-mail. Let's see:
- X.400/X.500 were much better designed, much more extensible, better
standardized.
- Internet e-mail/SMTP had easier to read e-mail addresses.
It's a tough choice... and many governments would not touch the
internet e-mail system, because "readability" was irrelevant in
context with electronic mail systems, and a good standard was needed
(instead of this RFC crap).
My opinion is clear: If you like the path of the internet, TCP/IP,
HTTP, SMTP, e-mail etc., SPF version 1 has the syntax we need.
If you believe in Microsoft Network, CompuServe, ATM, ActiveX, X.400,
X.500, go for the XML syntax.
If we create a dual data format spec, allowing both XML and the old
notation, we get both an easy notation (= popularity, deployment,
easier to understand for newbies) and the ability to extend the data
format later (XML notation only).
Lars.
--
Mobil: 20331241
Evt.: 70201241
Fax.: 70201242
My public GnuPG key: http://dybdahl.dk/lars/gpg/
-------
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
pgpOS6jxtoiyP.pgp
Description: signature