spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF

2004-11-24 04:51:55
In <6051(_at_)rama(_dot_)pamho(_dot_)net> "Roger Moser" 
<Roger(_dot_)Moser(_at_)rama(_dot_)pamho(_dot_)net> writes:

Stephane wrote:

I volunteer but the consensus here seemed to be that we should wait
until the SPF council is formed.

Why wait? Just do it now. The name is already known ("SPF") and the format
is already known too (like the TXT RR). We need this RR not only for storing
the SPF record but also for publishing the DK, SES, IIM, etc. sender
policies.

I suspect that the IETF won't want to see SPF RRs used for things
other than SPF records for the same reasons they don't want to see TXT
RRs used:  it might fill up the 512 byte UDP packet and there is no
way to select only one sender policy type.


The folks promoting DK, SES, IIM, etc. will need to ask the DNS folks
to allocate special records for each of those uses.  Of course, the
DNS folks won't allocate new records at the drop off a hat, since that
would quickly burn up the limited number of potential DNS RR types.
However, if they don't make it easy for new ideas to get their own DNS
RR type, people will just "experiement" with TXT records and then
after things take off, there won't be an easy way to migrate away from
them.  A nasty catch-22.


In <200411240846(_dot_)iAO8kgN09246(_at_)www(_dot_)watkins-home(_dot_)com> Guy 
<pobox(_at_)watkins-home(_dot_)com> writes:

Just depreciate the use of the TXT records after some period of time, maybe
1 or 2 years.  Pick a number.  The 1-2 years should start the day the draft
is accepted as a standard.  I like 1 year myself.  After that no one should
be accessing txt records.

As William pointed out yesterday, the IETF has had bad luck with any
sort of transition schedule and probably won't allow it.  This was
also discussed on the IETF MARID list.

While your above timeline sounds reasonable on the surface, there are
actually many problems with it.

First off, due to problems within the IETF, even RFCs like 2821/2822
have not been able to advance to being a standard after 3 years.

Secondly, there are no protocol police and there is nothing that will
force programmers to update their DNS software to handle the new RR
record.  In particular, MS has made it clear that simply can't deliver
new software until at least the Longhorn release, if not the release
after.  (The story is complicated and involves MS doing stupid things
many years ago, but I can see why they can't quickly get themselves
out of their mess.)   So, it could easily be years from now before a
new RR can be queried or published.

Thirdly, there are no protocol police and there is nothing that will
force mail/dns admins to upgrade to the latest software needed to
handle the new DNS RR type.


I have a very hard time envisioning a time when there aren't a
significant number of domains that publish SPF records as TXT RRs
exclusively.  As a result, I foresee a lot of software checking TXT
RRs exclusively, and therefore few domains will ever publish only SPF
RR types.  As I mentioned above, there is no good method to migrate
from one RR type to another and it is a nasty catch-22.


-wayne