spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

XML thoughts overview (was: XML Poll)

2004-06-02 17:22:54
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>