Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt

You say that there are implementations out there that implement the 
older syntax, and that other implementations use a 2822 compatible 
syntax. So for this particular issue, I think you should:

	Explain (and describe) the two implemented syntaxes; one that is 
incompatible with 2822 and a subset that IS compatible. Then explain 
that new implementations MUST use the compatible format.

The same goes for any other issue: start your description with what's 
currently out there. Then, if necessary, describe what new 
implementations SHOULD or MUST do.

Remember, people aren't just writing new code to generate the stuff. 
People also have to implement code that accepts the older stuff.

	Tony Hansen
	[email protected]

wayne wrote:
> Maybe we could use the example I gave in a previous message about the
> Received-SPF header.  Should I document what was allowed under the
> older SPF specs, which doesn't even match RFC2822's "obsolete" syntax,
> or should I document something that is largely compatible with all
> implementations that I know of and compatible with RFC2822?  I think
> it reasonable to say that an already large percent of Received-SPF
> headers conform to what is in the I-D (e.g. RFC2822 compatible), and
> that in the future, this percentage will increase.