Re: SPF as basis for combined proposal

Meng Weng Wong wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 12:54:03AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> |
> | What concerns me here is the fact that all of the individual proposals
> | are still being updated separatly. When do we reach the stage where one
> | single proposal can be made and updated?
> |
> 
> When we reach consensus on which one to use as the basis for the
> combined proposal, I guess.
> 
> Having reviewed the different RFCs, do you have an opinion?

I'd like to know this also.

> I believe Gordon would prefer a purer, cleaner design with one lookup
> per transaction.  I have preserved that facility under the "PI"
> mechanism.  But I've also added all of RMX's mechanisms, and a few more.

So would I.

> I like RMX's APL records.  I have written to the dnsext WG chairs asking
> if they can allocate an experimental RRtype; based on their response
> we'll see if we go ahead with TXT or something new that can be widely
> adopted.  If we use something new, I would like to include APL support
> into SPF.

A new RR type has no historical baggage, which has some appeal, but DNS
servers _AND_ resolver libraries must be updated for it to be of use. This
is a significant barrier for new RR types .

> But I have a feeling we'll have to go ahead with TXT just from adoption
> considerations.

Or A RRs.


Raymond S Brand