spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: What to include...

2004-10-04 23:48:23
On Oct 4, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 06:44:14PM -0700,
 Mark Lentczner <markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> wrote
 a message of 54 lines which said:

3) New DNS RR Type ------------------ While this language never
appeared in any SPF draft, ... Essentially, it simply endorses and
hopes you will use a the new RR type (once it is assigned by the
IANA).

Drop it. It is not currently used at all and it requires action from
IANA, a sure way to delay the new RFC for a lot of time.

I would like to see a SPF RR just for the sake of not overloading the meaning of the TXT RR. Granted, RFC 1035 states "TXT RRs are used to hold descriptive text. The semantics of the text depends on the domain where it is found," SPF as its own protocol now applies a specific role to the TXT RR and it could be considered contrary to the intended use of TXT as defined in RFC 1035.

New RRs are cheap. That's what they're there for. I believe someone here a week or two ago mentioned that they could bring this up at a upcoming DNS WG meeting. The SPF RFC can still be written in absence of a made-to-order RR. Perhaps writing the RFC and getting a RR could be parallel efforts... and I feel that having a SPF RR would give the greater community and industry a better feeling as to the completeness and maturity of the protocol.... this would be a win in light of the MARID debacle and confusion as to who is going to come out on top.

But if SPFv1 is released and specifies TXT:

DNS servers should return any/all TXT RRs when queried (if a host has more than one) a note should probably be included in the RFC reminding implementation authors that this situation could arise and to code appropriately. Could save some heart ache in the future.

/dale


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