Stephane Bortzmeyer [bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr] wrote:
Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com> wrote
moreover, there should be two documents. one an FYI describing SPF
as it is (TXT RR based), and one a proposed standard recommending a
new RR type.
This seems quite reasonable and it has already been proposed but
without any reaction:
[...]
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0272.html:
| 3.1.1 "RR Types" mentions a new RR type.
|
| It is currently not used, not deployed, and therefore out of scope for
| a draft which says to document "the common core of the SPF version 1
| protocol, as implemented and deployed since about December, 2003."
| (Note that I say nothing about wether it is a good idea or not for SPF
| v2.)
|
| And it may add a delay for the publication of the RFC since it
| requests IANA action.
|
| I would like to see 3.1.1 and 11 deleted.
Before Wayne was declared the official editor of the official SPFv1 spec,
the spec he worked on may indeed have been supposed to document current
implementations.
But now we are editing the official SPFv1 specification, which is not
required to confine itself to simply document existing implementations.
And although I sure would like to maintain as far as possible a backwards
compatibility to existing implementations, there might very well be some
details that cannot sensibly remain 100% identical to current practice.
I think keeping the new SPF RR type in the SPFv1 spec is sensible. It's
not as if a short delay in the official adoption of the spec by the IETF
were a real problem.