-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
[SHOULD - MAY - SHOULD]
IIRC this deliberately fuzzy (AKA diplomatic) wording is the result of
some earlier discussions about exactly this issue.
Wayne already said that he would use the "SHOULD is not MUST" exit from
this timeout dilemma. I'd also use it in a simple implementation (two
threads, with one thread it's as you said no issue, because then you'd
never have two pending queries)
"Forget it if you don't like it" is not my idea of a SHOULD, otherwise
I'd press very hard for a SHALL NOT instead of the NOT RECOMMENDED in the
subject. IMHO a SHOULD is no nonsense.
If it means something I don't see - like "you really ought to have a SPF
cache layer" - then let's say so in the SPF spec.
Unfortunately, you omitted some relevant context. This is what I said:
| > I'd never implement it this way, as soon as I get an answer I use it
| > and don't wait for any trouble in the form of a second different
| > answer.
|
| Hey, you're lucky! The spec allows this:
|
| | An SPF compliant check SHOULD try to look up and use a record of the
| | SPF type first, before falling back to the TXT type. However, the
| | client MAY also perform lookup of both types in parallel. If for a
| | domain both types are obtained but their contents do not match, the
| | SPF client SHOULD return a "PermError" result.
|
| Note the wording "if both types are obtained". IIRC this deliberately
| fuzzy (AKA diplomatic) wording is the result of some earlier discussions
| about exactly this issue.
When I said "diplomatic wording", I meant the "if both types are obtained"
clause, not the "SHOULD, MAY, SHOULD" words. Those are diplomatic, too,
but they're a different matter.
No, you don't need two separate threads to have two queries pending at the
same time. Just send off two queries in two UDP packets, then wait for
two replies in two UDP packets. Can easily be done in a single thread.
No, the spec does not insinuate that an "SPF cache layer" should be used.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the rest of your message.
Perhaps it's due to me being tired. Could you please rephrase it in a
slightly more coherent way?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCfpGwwL7PKlBZWjsRAj0BAKCNaIePhgAwxSj7Z+iRespVxtgVAwCeNxmQ
Zc0pwaku8vm6QfZroc1PuT4=
=Hji/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----