spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

IETF co-chairs rule: No on XML, Yes on SPF

2004-06-25 12:02:51

fyi;

Andy Netwon, the co-chair of the IETF MARID working group, just posted
the following message:

-wayne



Based on constructive working group discourse, the co-chairs of MARID 
observe the following:

1) There is consensus within the MARID working group for the use of SPF 
syntax over other encoding schemes.  While this consensus is not 
unanimous or overwhelming, it is rough consensus.  The working group's 
rough consensus on this issue derives from several considerations; 
among them is the belief that MARID's output should focus on the 
short-term needs of MTA authentication (consistent with the charter of 
the group), and that open-ended extensibility for email policy within a 
MARID record may lead to problems of interoperability.  The co-chairs 
also note that there were no practical or obvious examples of 
extensions to a MARID record that could not be represented by the SPF 
syntax.

2) The consensus for the use of SPF syntax does not preclude continuing 
work on the PRD and SUBMITTER concepts.  The co-chairs note that there 
has been very constructive discourse on these concepts and that the 
working group should continue to refine these ideas for use with 
MARID's output.

3) Despite the working group's consensus for the use of SPF syntax, the 
co-chairs find that there is no consensus for declaring the SPF 
specification finished.  The co-chairs observe that there are still 
many unanswered questions regarding extensibility in SPF, specifically 
how and if SPF modifiers should refer to other policy frameworks and 
the need to more clearly define default behavior and safe-guard against 
side-effects caused by unknown SPF modifiers and mechanisms.  The 
co-chairs note that such semantics of extensibility are not specific to 
any type of syntax or encoding.

4) Finally, the co-chairs observe that the MARID working group has a 
very strong consensus, though not unanimous, on the reuse of TXT 
records for initial deployment and on a reuse of TXT syntax in the long 
term.  The consensus is centered around the belief of most participants 
that a MARID record in TXT form will generally be small enough as to 
not require DNS over TCP.  The co-chairs find that the working group 
has not come to consensus on the use of a record prefix vs TXT records 
at the zone apex and has not reached consensus on how to address 
domains with wildcard MX records.

It should be noted that none of the above findings preclude the future 
re-chartering of MARID to define a new DNS record type and/or a new 
encoding for that record.

To meet the tight deadline this working group as set for itself to have 
a candidate for a proposed standard by the end of August, 2004, we 
propose the following schedule of activities:

   - Due 2004-07-02: Decide if CSV is complimentary, parts to be 
incorporated, or dropped.
   - Due 2004-07-08: Decide how MARID output will work with already 
deployed SPF records (v=spf2?).
   - Due 2004-07-31: Refine SPF syntax and extensibility semantics.
   - Due 2004-07-31: Fold in PRD and SUBMITTER.

-andy & mtr





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