In <42788D95(_dot_)7F98(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
["document history"]
I could easily have missed it, but I haven't found that to
be a requirement.
It's not required, it's just a polite way to indicate that you
have seen the IESG [Discuss] notes and addressed them by some
modifications like the "Version 1" in the title.
I will try to add one. I may even add a change history from
draft-mengwong-spf-0[01], and a change history from those and the
previous dozen drafts. Well, at least highlight the change history.
Considering my past history though, I wouldn't recommend holding your
breath waiting for this though. :-/
The RfC 2119 key words REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, and
OPTIONAL are not used. Probably irrelevant, but Bruce
apparently checks this.
Uhmm... I'm guessing this is a joke?
Ask Bruce, I'm not sure - it's apparently not mentioned in the
rfc-author-guide-01 or the 1idguidelines. Bruce knows _all_
relevant RfCs by heart including the errata. Maybe. But I'm
sure that he doesn't like SPF.
Ok, pardon my ignorance, but by "Bruce" do you mean "Bruce Lilly" or
someone else?
| Checking other identities against the SPF records defined
| in this memo is NOT RECOMMENDED
I'm not going to touch "spf2.0" records.
Yes, that's exactly the point of adding "defined in this memo".
You have only "against SPF records". That's not precise, it
could be (mis)read as "all versions of SPF including spf2.0",
and then the NOT RECOMMENDED would be incorrect.
Ok, I think I see your point on this. I've changed the sentence to
your suggestion.
I changed the %-hack reference to your suggested RFC1123.
Yes, but there's still something odd with this paragraph.
I think this is a minor squable over a half dozen words. Unless
others feel strongly about this, I think I'm going to just agree to
disagree with you on this. Feel free to propose the change to a vote
on the council.
The language dealing with the SPF vs TXT DNS RRs was hashed
out between MarkL and (unamed) "DNS gurus". I don't see this
as being worth battling them on it, but I'm also not sure if
the "DNS gurus" will care.
Okay, let's assume that these gurus wanted identical records.
You could still s/SHOULD/MAY/ if the records are different.
As I mentioned in another post today, I would be happy to just
eliminate all references to the SPF RR, but that ain't gonna happen.
It may be due to this bias that I'm willing to take the position of
"whatever the DNS gurus say is fine, as long as I can go on using TXT
RRs."
Or just say SPF before TXT, and don't mention this "parallel
query" with different results. Excl. -q=any I'm not sure how
this works. Send a -q=spf followed by a -q=txt and then wait
for the first answer ? But whatever the first answer is, you
would use it, and not wait for a different / identical answer
for the 2nd query, or a timeout.
Yes, many anti-spam programs send many DNS lookup queries off all at
once, and wait for various responses to come back. For example,
SpamAssassin will do a bunch of DNSBL queries, and only wait for a
certain amount of time for responses to come back before they ignore
them. Since the response for late DNSBL queries will still be cached,
maybe the next email from the same IP address will benefit.
The SA folks were adamant at the MARID interim meeting that requiring
serialized DNS lookups were a horrible idea.
-wayne