"wayne" <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wrote:
In <200406011930(_dot_)29551(_dot_)lars(_at_)dybdahl(_dot_)dk> "Lars B.
Dybdahl"
<lars(_at_)dybdahl(_dot_)dk> writes:
I know that my arguments are basically against XML, but I do prefer a
dual-format standard. By having dual formats, you can always specify
99% of all cases using the simple syntax, so that XML is only needed
for the < 1% domains that belong to people, who don't understand the
K.I.S.S. principle :-)
The current dogma is that the XML and SPF formats will be completely
isomorphic. That is, there will be *nothing* that can be done
(semantically) in one but not the other.
No, it's the whole point of having two syntaxes. The SPF syntax will be a
subset of the XML syntax.
I think that the dual format is bad because:
1) It forces people new to SPF to make a "hard" and certainly
confusing choice right off the bat: Do the publish in SPF syntax,
or XML? Which one is "better"? If they are both the same, why are
there two?
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that newcommers would use SPF. XML
would only be needed for people who want the "advanced" features not
available in the SPF syntax.
3) It will require two lookups to see if either are available. The
current merged SPF/C-ID proposal calls for the XML to be used. So,
for literally 99.7% of the domains, we will have to check for a
non-existent XML record and also check for the SPF record. (There
are around 250 times as many domains that exclusively publish SPF
records than exclusively publish C-ID records.)
I guess they would be reachable with a single DNS query, you query
_marid.domain.com and see if you get XML or SPF syntax in return.
2) the two published records could conflict, which will, at best,
cause confusion.
It could be required to only publish only one syntax. Again if they are
available from the same query, you reduce the confusion.
4) You have more than twice the chance that there will be bugs in the
parsing code and twice as much parsing code to test.
Yes, it's the worst problem with the dual syntax.
BTW, I agree with points 5, 6, 7.
Cheers,
GFK's
--
Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/