william(at)elan.net
This was discussed and at the FTC meeting. The view there was that
should be no new RR and that any new RR will be ignored. The TXT
record is final and will not be revised.
Don't confuse people, it was not discussed at FTC. Existing
proposals were
presented at FTC but proposals as part of them contain text that say
that new RR type will be used but right now until its been
allocated we're using TXT for purposes of TESTING and
EXPERIMENTATION.
The issue of changing the RR was certainly raised, I raised it.
There was lots of talk at the summit but not all of it was equal. The key
statements were the ones made by the large ISPs and in the press release
that went out before the meeting. SPF/Sender-ID is now a done deal, it has
gone past the point of no return, nobody can make changes at this point if
they want to.
The CSV faction did have a legitimate complaint about the way they were
treated. They were asked to put off discussing or submitting their idea
until the issues with SPF were addressed, then it closed without any further
ado. But it was equally clear that they were too late getting started, the
boat has sailed on the syntax issue, its SPF version1.
Note that FTC Summit seems to have ended not with opinion
that we should deploy SenderID immediatly but that we should
do some more testing and then discuss results again before
deciding if the system works. Very few were willing to base
their decisions based on SenderID right now.
The parties that represent the bulk of the ISP, email sending and MTA vendor
markets all said they were going ahead. People are waiting for experimental
results on the crypto issue but deployment is going ahead on SPF now.
If you disagree with this decision then take it up with the UN.
We'll take it with IETF and FTC has smart technical people
who agree more
with IETF then they do with somebody as monopoly-hungry as Microsoft.
Are you arguing to postpone deployment of SPF until the DNS infrastructure
is upgraded as the DNSEXT group has been insisting on?
I thought that you were a member of the 'deploy now its time' world.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft's position.
The alleged technical 'elegance' of the solution is utterly irrelevant at
this point. If you wait for the IETF to give you an answer then you will be
waiting for another decade - witness IPSEC, DNSSEC etc ad nauseam.
Meng's hack is too widely deployed at this point to reverse out. Like MSDOS
it is never going to go away completely.
Nevertheless, IETFers like Peter Koch were extremely
vocal about it,
asking for no TXT records at all and just the new record,
disclaiming
installed base as either inexistant or unimportant.
Well he is wrong.
No you are, no you are, no you are.... Children's playground it is!
And from technical perspective of IETF, Peter Koch is absolutly right.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly, the prefixed TXT record and the new RR
record approach are equally sound from a technical point of view and the
prefix does not require an upgrade of the architecture.