Re: The state of DNS support, was Deprecating SPF
Jay Daley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.dnsext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 26/08/2013, at 9:43 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > The point behind the query is to solicit some actual evidence that might reasonably counter the 7-year adoption failure of the SPF RR. Evidence, that is, that goes beyond /non-implementation/ excuses. Dave, I think you are being unfair to those implementors. Almost all implementors I know take the approach that they only implement what they have to implement to make a "minimum viable product". RFC4408 allowed them to only implement TXT and say "Yes, we support SPF and yes we are standards compliant". Seven years later and nothing has changed that makes their product any less viable so there's been no reason for them to change. RFC6686 has even reduced any future need to change. To me there's been no failure by implementors and no excuses are necessary because their behaviour has been *entirely rational*. And I might add, *entirely predictable*. Issue an RFC that requires type 99 and they will be entirely rational again and ask "Do we want to remain standards compliant and how easy is it to remain so?". The answer to the second part we know is "trivial". Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840 linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext