Back in April, I posted:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200404/0491.html
Slowly but surely we are on the road to IETF ratification.
The IETF is "checking our work" and making sure SPF didn't
miss anything.
Two months later, the co-chairs of the MARID working group
recently put out a statement supporting the decisions we've
made so far. If anyone has a bottle of champagne in the
fridge, this is as good a time as any to use it up!
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 02:41:26PM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
|
| 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
The schedule has been revised since the post, google for
"marid mxcomp list" archives for more.