S Moonesamy wrote:
Brian Carpenter wrote:
Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both
formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect to see
nine rows in the results table:
SPF RR only, spf1 only
SPF RR only, spf2.0 only
SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
TXT RR only, spf1 only
TXT RR only, spf2.0 only
TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only
SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only
SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0
Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of
RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE.
Would that be sufficient?
I don't see where this is headed. The report was looking for something
that was already there and know and I guess it trying to get a
justification to eliminate something.
What are we looking for?
Elimination of SPF RR lookups?
Elimination of SPF2.0 content in the SPF or TXT records?
I hate to revert back to the original design presumptions in MARID,
but everyone was working on the basis that one day DNS servers, ALL OF
THEM, CROSS THE OS BOARD, would inevitably be updated to support
RFC3597 Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types. But that
has not been the case, MS DNS 5.0 was only updated to support SVR,
DNSSEC. But not the passthru query recursive requirements necessary
for RFC3597.
So supporting any unnamed RR type is simply not practical today.
However, as predicted, the migration advice did materialize, abeit in
short numbers. So IMO, we need to make a decision if its still
feasible to pursue unnamed RR type support.
Second and finally, the results of SPF2.0 record is irrelevant because
this REPORT is not doing anything towards or does it have any business
in eliminating or providing the "illusion" of eliminating Sender ID or
SIDF (Sender ID Framework) which includes PRA and SUBMITTER protocol
support.
This Report has failed to consider the original EXPERIMENTAL questions
of the so call conflicts that were cited, ones I have failed to see
since its inception in early 2000s.
Address the real technical issues so that deployments of many years
can learn what do do with the mix support of SPF vs SIDF and also TXT
vs SPF RRs. The data in this report has not provided any engineering
insight whatsoever other than the fact that clients DO support both
SIDF and SPF RRs.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
