In
<1086220712(_dot_)2134(_dot_)36257(_dot_)camel(_at_)localhost(_dot_)localdomain>
Mark Shewmaker <mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> writes:
Looking at the issue from technical, political, and
willingness-to-change, and PR sides:
Great overview of the XML situation. Anyone who didn't read the
parent post, please do!
Technical:
----------
[...]
o SPF's not-so-extensible semantics is a necessary *feature*, as
you don't want two SPFv1-compliant receivers to come up
with different results for the same record and emails.
I'm going to jump up and down and rant here: THIS IS CRITICAL!
Political:
----------
Adopting XML gains us a political advantage, as Microsoft likes XML.
With Microsoft as an active supporter:
o Presumably a new RR type will be easier to get through.
A new RR type would be nice, but we could live without it,
and previously we were in fact going to go without it.
This is about the only thing I slightly disagree with.
First, MicroSoft is being extremely firm with their position that a
new RR type MUST NOT be a requirement. This is due to MS's blotched
(I think that's their words) DNS implementation that can not support
new record types without a major OS upgrade.
Secondly, it is generally people in the DNS community that are pushing
for the use of a new record type.
If I could wave a wand and convert all existing SPF records to a new
RR type I would. IMVHO, changing the SPF RR type, the location of the
record within the DNS tree or invalidating the SPFv1 semantics would
be a huge mistake.
-wayne