--Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:26:30PM -0500, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
wrote:
>> wayne wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think that exclusively using a DNS RR in
>> the spec that won't exist on most people's name servers for
>> many months or years is very productive.
And you are certainly correct for the short term, and probably correct
for at least a couple years to come.
What would be a realistic, conversative, number ?
If we want to get rid of TXT records there MUST be a MUST NOT USE
clause in the RFC. For instance (example numbers, change to fit):
The following is surrounded by the necessary "spf is optional, if
you are going to implement it then these are the requirements"
I am actually OK with not having a schedule. I would like to have a
schedule but I don't believe any of us have the ability to write one that
would be at all believeable. I think the only harmful side effect of not
having a schedule is a need to support TXT for "a good long time"...
probably until there are so few left that nobody cares, or another RFC
comes along and declares TXT v=spf1 records as deprecated.
I don't think there is really a rush to get off of TXT records. They don't
seem to have an assigned, intended use that we're conflicting with. Mostly
I think the reason we want to start thinking about SPF RR type is that
we'll all feel a bit silly 5 years from now if we never started down the
path at all.
Is there another bad side effect of not setting a schedule that I didn't
pick up on? I wasn't sure why you said MUST have it - my guess is that it
hinges on that "if we ever want to get rid of TXT" clause...
Thanks
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>