wayne wrote:
One thing that needs to be fixed is the language about giving a
PermError if the TXT and SPF (type99) records don't match. As we
realized after we got the new RR number, these records can get out of
sync and there is nothing we can do to prevent that. Such a change is
*not* an editorial change and I will need to go back to the IETF Area
Director (Ted Hardie) and/or the IESG and make sure such a change is
ok. Or, at least, that's what Andy Newton recommended that I do.
Sounds perfectly reasonable. Your NPOV for anything related to
the SPF RR is also guaranteed <beg> and if the relevant AD does
not allow this fix it's no big deal.
<rant> I always wanted "take whatever you get after asking for
SPF first" without attempts to check that it's identical if you
get both. But allegedly some anonymous 'DNS gurus' demanded it.
Came along Florian and said 'bull'. Who were the 'DNS gurus' ?
About a third of all answers in SPF Help contain caveats about
caching and TTLs, and we still managed to let this "MUST" slip
in, </rant> <sigh />
Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com