--On Monday, August 26, 2013 10:49 -0400 John R Levine
jo...@taugh.com wrote:
Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit
notion that the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not
be seen as a precedent and best
I probably should have sent out this message over the weekend, but I was
hoping I would complete a bigger message soon. Since I'm still working
on that, a quick note to level set:
I have been reading all of the Last Call responses as they have come in.
I am in the process of reviewing the
On 08/23/2013 04:34 PM, John Levine wrote:
I don't know of any (at least ones that are used in the global dns
namespace), and I would like to still not know of any in 2033.
Since we agree that the issue you're worried about has not arisen even
once in the past decade, could you clarify
prevented, not solved. I would like to prevent someone from having to
submit a draft specifying that in the case of TXT, the (name, class,
type)-tuple should be extended with the first X octets from the RDATA
fields, somewhere in the future, because client-side demuxing is getting
too buggy and
On 08/26/2013 04:08 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Could you point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that the odd
history of the SPF TXT record means that it is perfectly fine to do
something similar in the future?
Three of the four points on the list that triggered my first message in
this
Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that
the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent
and best practice, rather than hope that this is implicit.
I'd have thought that the debate here
On 08/26/2013 04:49 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that
the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent
and best practice, rather than hope that this is
On 08/26/2013 04:55 PM, Jelte Jansen wrote:
I'd have thought that the debate here and elsewhere already documented
that. Since it's not specific to SPF, perhaps we could do a draft on
overloaded TXT considered harmful to get it into the RFC record.
That draft may not be a bad idea.
It
On 08/22/2013 07:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article 5215cd8d.3080...@sidn.nl you write:
So what makes you think the above 4 points will not be a problem for the
next protocol that comes along and needs (apex) RR data? And the one
after that?
SPF is ten years old now. It would be helpful
SPF is ten years old now. It would be helpful if you could give us a
list of other protocols that have had a similar issue with a TXT
record at the apex during the past decade.
I don't know of any (at least ones that are used in the global dns
namespace), and I would like to still not know of
Hello,
This message has a Bcc to an IETF participant.
In my write-up for the Responsible Area Director I mentioned that:
There was an intermediate conclusion about the topic of whether the SPF
protocol should use the SPF RRTYPE or the TXT resource record. It was
followed by an
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:23:56AM -0400 Quoting Scott
Kitterman (scott@kitterma
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 00:26:35
On 08/21/2013 08:44 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Most of the recent arguments against SPF type have come down to the following
(as far as I can tell):
a) I can not add SPF RRtype via my provisioning system into my DNS
servers
b) My firewall doesl not let SPF Records through
On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:36 AM, Jelte Jansen jelte.jan...@sidn.nl wrote:
On 08/21/2013 08:44 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Most of the recent arguments against SPF type have come down to the
following (as far as I can tell):
a) I can not add SPF RRtype via my provisioning system into
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Jelte Jansen jelte.jan...@sidn.nl wrote:
While I appreciate the argument 'this works now, and it is used'
(running code, and all that), I am very worried that we'll end up with
what is essentially a free-form blob containing data for several
protocols at the
In article 5215cd8d.3080...@sidn.nl you write:
So what makes you think the above 4 points will not be a problem for the
next protocol that comes along and needs (apex) RR data? And the one
after that?
SPF is ten years old now. It would be helpful if you could give us a
list of other protocols
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what validators
look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants to provide
different evidence now, it wouldn't hurt.
Out of morbid
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S
Moonesamy (sm+ietf@elandsys.c
My reading of the SPFBIS Charter is
On 21 aug 2013, at 09:17, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what validators
look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants to
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic, even so. The *hard*
part
So your point is that their conclusions that nobody has the record
installed is false?
Eliot
On 8/21/13 12:42 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 21 aug 2013, at 12:26, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
The easy part was supposed to be people actually using the SPF record, once
it was out there.
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:00:56 Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1)
to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S
Moonesamy
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
Name servers already have access controls down to the granuality
of TYPE. If this draft proceeds as currently described it is forcing
name server vendors to access controls at the sub TYPE granuality.
With SPF lookup first I can specify the SPF policy
No hat
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:26:51PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
Actually, that _was_ in question. Remember, part of the justification
for ditching TYPE99 is not only that publishers don't use it, but also
that if they
On 08/21/2013 03:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Speaking as the SPFBIS co-chair…
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:55:33AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT
== SPF). In the mean time, declare a suspension of
last call to gauge
On Tue 20/Aug/2013 07:27:12 +0200 David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
one lesson i might take from this is, if i want to deploy a new
hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the interim.
Nor the same format, IMHO.
My personal belief is
On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
My conclusion is that a statement that nobody queries for it is false.
I am curious if the folks who did the analysis of query rates know the answers
to the following questions:
1. Per unit of mail delivered (as opposed to
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 09:39:28 Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
* To what extent has that happened?
I'm not the shepherd, but it is undeniable that most current-era
shipping DNS servers support RRTYPE 99.
The operational issues I've encountered with actually trying to use RRTYPE99
in
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in the WG
too.
Name servers already have access controls down to the granuality
of TYPE. If this draft proceeds as currently
Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic,
At 04:55 21-08-2013, manning bill wrote:
regarding adoption
it would be interesting to
take a second snapshot from each of these servers in about six months
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs
observations that not all TXT == SPF). In the
mean time, declare a suspension of
last
Patrik,
On 8/21/2013 7:17 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
My conclusion is that a statement that nobody queries for it is
false.
Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not
mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant
operational effort, rather than a
On 21 aug 2013, at 19:31, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not
mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant
operational effort, rather than a stray implementation here or there,
which counts as noise in any
On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been published.
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
d/
--
Dave
On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave
On 21 aug 2013, at 20:29, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been
published.
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 14:44:41 Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700,
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:51:31AM -0400 Quoting Scott
Kitterman (scott@kitterma
Apparently.
Translated:
RFC 4408
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 22:05:37 Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1)
to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:51:31AM -0400 Quoting
Scott
In message 7917527.VmCQD3a6Q3@scott-latitude-e6320, Scott Kitterman writes:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in the WG
too.
Name servers already have
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly what it
is, a TXT record.
I can hand update of A and records to the machine.
I can hand update of MX records to the mail adminstrator.
I can
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:52:59PM -0400 Quoting Scott
Kitterman (scott@kitterma
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 22:05:37
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly
what it
is, a TXT record.
I can hand update of A and records to the machine.
I can hand update of MX
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 7917527.VmCQD3a6Q3@scott-latitude-e6320, Scott Kitterman
writes:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in
the WG
Hi Eliot,
At 03:26 21-08-2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the
table. However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are
happening. What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I
must admit I am having a difficult time
In message 0c3746c3-dac1-471f-bd07-8faf20481...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly
what it
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 14:44:41 Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
What I want the IESG to add a note to the document is that says something
like the following: The retirement of SPF from specification is not to be
taken that new RRtypes can not be used by applications, the
Scott,
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
You could publish:
example.com IN TXT v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com
_spf.example. com IN TXT v=spf1 [actual content here]
Then delegate _spf.example.com to the mail administrator. Problem solved.
Wouldn't
NB: I have read the rest of the thread; but this is what deserves a reply:
Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
(There may have been a miscommunication here -- what particular AD
function Pete was speaking in; but to
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 09:31:03 Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 0c3746c3-dac1-471f-bd07-8faf20481...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an
Hi John,
At 20:02 21-08-2013, John Leslie wrote:
If this is the sort of response given to somewhat-valid questions
raised about the draft being proposed, Pete will eventually have to
say there _is_ no consensus. :^(
An Area Director may say that. :-(
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 00:26:35 Måns Nilsson wrote:
...
SPF is a flagship case for the use a TXT record and continue to IPO
fast and sloppy crowd. It needs correcting. Badly.
Which IPO was that?
BTW, in 2003 the choice was use TXT or nothing. So it was a crowd that wanted
to accomplish
On 20 aug 2013, at 07:21, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The first is that there now a number of other apps using TXT records,
with no problems, because they are stored under scoping nodes
(underscore-prefaced names). This approach might be aesthetically
displeasing, but it
On 8/19/2013 11:33 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Reason for this is that the RR with an underscored prefix MIGHT end up in a
different zone than the record without.
Patrik,
Please clarify. I don't know what you mean by the 'with' and 'without'
references.
And as long as I'm asking for
On 20 aug 2013, at 09:14, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/19/2013 11:33 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Reason for this is that the RR with an underscored prefix MIGHT end up in a
different zone than the record without.
Patrik,
Please clarify. I don't know what you mean by the
On 8/20/2013 1:12 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
There is a message from the Responsible Area Director at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02167.html which
might shine some light about that part of the charter.
Both RR Type 16 and RR Type 99 are in use on the Internet. Tony
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:14:21AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
And as long as I'm asking for more explanation, given the number of
years of use the construct has had and for the number of different
applications, where has the problem (whatever you mean specifically)
been seen?
Quite apart
The issue Måns Nilsson raises was discussed extensively on the SPFbis
list prior to as well as during last call on the list and I believe
the appropriate decision was reached by the working group. If there is
any doubt in the minds of the IESG regarding whether the working group
reached the
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 08:54:02AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
In other words, the specific technical limitations being noted are
unfortunate but (so far) not serious.
You should explain that to my employer's support department.
In any case, I don't think this topic is directly relevant to the
Hi Hector,
At 07:16 20-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
This doesn't seem to be correct. My apology if I don't follow or see
the logic. The only real issue as it was since day zero in MARID
was the infrastructure support for recursive passthru queries which
is what RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown
From a pure protocol point of view the SPF record does have one major
advantage over TXT and that is in the use of wildcard records.
In short a wildcard on a TXT record for SPF is going to have impact on
every other scheme that overloads TXT, of which there are many. SPF does
have a mechanism to
On 8/20/2013 9:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 08:54:02AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
In other words, the specific technical limitations being noted are
unfortunate but (so far) not serious.
You should explain that to my employer's support department.
In any case, I
No hat.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:16:56PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
From a pure protocol point of view the SPF record does have one major
advantage over TXT and that is in the use of wildcard records.
This is an extremely interesting point, and I'm ashamed to admit I
hadn't really
Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:19:16AM -0700 Quoting The IESG
(iesg-secret...@ietf.org)
The IESG has received a request from
* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type
is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet. ...
Uh huh.
$ dig besserwisser.org txt
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;besserwisser.org. IN TXT
;; ANSWER SECTION:
besserwisser.org.
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:49PM - Quoting John
Levine (jo...@taugh.com):
* The charter disallows major protocol
On Monday, August 19, 2013 21:05:33 Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:49PM - Quoting John
Levine
* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type
is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet. ...
The SPF working group discussed this issue at painful, extensive length.
As you saw when you read the WG archives, there is a significant
Note that I am not the shepherd for this draft, but I am the WG
co-chair.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:05:21PM +0200, Måns Nilsson wrote:
* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type
is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet.
That
There is nothing syntactially worng with those entries. I congratulate
people advocating SPF in TXT records while also writing parsers.
None of your TXT records are SPF records because they don't start with
the required version tag. You have two type 99 records that start
with the version tag,
I'm having a hard time with both sides of the argument, especially the
supposed existence of a interop problem which seems to only to be
highlighted to procedurally stump the SPF type advocates. I don't
believe there was an adequate answer from the advocates of removing the SPF
RR type and the
Speaking in my capacity as responsible AD for this WG and document, and
the one who is going to have to judge the consensus of this Last Call
and report to the IESG.
On 8/19/13 3:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Note that I am not the shepherd for this draft, but I am the WG
co-chair.
On Mon,
My apologies: A typo rendering a sentence incoherent that I missed
before hitting Send:
On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
that they
set far too
On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
that they
set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring
failure.
I think you're going to need
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
that they
set far too optimistic deadlines
On 8/19/2013 2:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Moreover:
What is the premise for seven years being not long enough? And what
does constitute long enough? And upon what is that last answer based?
It would be wonderful if the boundaries for this test were written down
somewhere, so that we
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
From earlier exchanges about this concern, the
On 8/19/2013 2:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So I think it _is_ fair to
say that adoption of features in core infrastructure takes a very long
time, and if one wants to add such features one has to be prepared to
wait.
As long as the generic topic is being commented on...
The difference
Hi,
On Aug 19, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
Operationally, there are far more problems associated with actually trying to
use Type 99 than there are with SPF records in Type TXT.
Given the abysmal state of implementation of middleboxes _today_, this isn't
On Monday, August 19, 2013 14:54:44 David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Aug 19, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
Operationally, there are far more problems associated with actually trying
to use Type 99 than there are with SPF records in Type TXT.
Given the abysmal
AFAICT, no one is arguing that overloading TXT in the
way recommended by this draft is a good idea, rather the best arguments appear
to be that it is a pragmatic
least bad solution to the fact that (a) people often implement (poorly) the
very least they can get away
with and (b) it can take a
In message 20130819214139.gb19...@mx1.yitter.info, Andrew Sullivan writes:
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave
Again, I'm not the shepherd on this, but I was involved in the
consensus call in the WG when we determined that the WG wanted to
deprecate use of RRTYPE 99. (Note that this deprecation means just
that users of SPF stop publishing that record. There's nothing in the
draft to remove the RRTYPE, as
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 03:59:50PM -0400 Quoting John R
Levine (jo...@taugh.com
* The charter disallows major protocol
In message 20130820022209.ga56...@mx1.yitter.info, Andrew Sullivan writes:
Again, I'm not the shepherd on this, but I was involved in the
consensus call in the WG when we determined that the WG wanted to
deprecate use of RRTYPE 99. (Note that this deprecation means just
that users of SPF
John,
On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:58 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
AFAICT, no one is arguing that overloading TXT in the
way recommended by this draft is a good idea, rather the best arguments
appear to be that it is a pragmatic
least bad solution to the fact that (a) people often
On Monday, August 19, 2013 21:57:26 David Conrad wrote:
John,
On Aug 19, 2013, at 3:58 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
AFAICT, no one is arguing that overloading TXT in the
way recommended by this draft is a good idea, rather the best arguments
appear to be that it is a pragmatic
At 08:05 19-08-2013, MÃns Nilsson wrote:
I strongly OPPOSE draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt being published as
RFC unless substantial parts are reworked.
* The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type
is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the
so, according to your message, one lesson i might take from this is, if
i want to deploy a new hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the
interim. i will be caught in a mess which will appear to be of my own
making. is that somewhat correct?
randy
On 8/19/2013 10:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
so, according to your message, one lesson i might take from this is, if
i want to deploy a new hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the
interim. i will be caught in a mess which will appear to be of my own
making. is that somewhat correct?
On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
so, according to your message, one lesson i might take from this is, if
i want to deploy a new hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the
interim. i will be caught in a mess which will appear to be of my own
making. is that
93 matches
Mail list logo
