william(at)elan.net wrote:
I'll not particAipate in the SPF effort further if we do not
agree to work on moving to new dedicated SPF RR DNS records
for the future.
On Sep 23, 2004, at 02:01, Frank Ellermann wrote:
IMHO you can't simply invent new RR types, that's something the
IETF is supposed to do. and that's why there was a MARID WG.
But MARID was closed, so how do you think to get a new DNS RR ?
--"Andrew W.Donoho" <awd(_at_)DDG(_dot_)com> wrote:
Because in my day job, I am looking to get some DNS RR records for my
own projects (that is why I attended IETF60 in San Diego). I found that
the chairs of the DNS WG quite receptive to issuing new RR types.
Therefore, I think
everyone would be happier if we just applied for an RR for both spf1 and
spf2. SPF does not have to be an IETF standard to get an RR. There are
many examples of IETF providing support for experimental protocols.
I agree, we should try to get an experimental RR type allocated for SPF.
Another point regarding this, as Meng pointed out in irc, MS seems to be
claiming that using TXT records in DNS to fight forgery is their idea.
Therefore, moving forward with another record type might steer us further
away from disputed territory, if the patent gets approved.
I don't forsee anyone dropping support for TXT though. The RR type has to
be available for a long time (I would say at least a year) before enough
servers and clients support it. It would have to be a long-term goal, but
I still think it's a good goal.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>