Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

On 15.08.2011 22:00, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Possible ways to improve that situation in 4408bis:
> 
> 1 - try the SHOULD type 99 approach again, a PS could succeed where
>     an "experiment" failed.

-1, the value of an experiment is to direct a PS to successful approaches.

> 2 - give up, note that TXT is ugly but can't be changed, and that
>     now is the time to drop SPF type 99 for the purposes of v=spf1.

+1, it is already an option.  In Scott's words, the current spec says that

  Operators are perfectly free to waste resources querying for Type SPF or
  not.  If you get both back, then the Type SPF takes precedence, but there's
  no requirement to look for it.
         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep/current/msg00404.html

I like TXT for unstructured data, I don't think it's ugly.  For uniformity
with other protocols (DKIM, ADP, VBR, ...) we might introduce _spf.domain at
the same time as we deprecate type 99.  While only updated software can query
_spf.domain directly, careful use of redirection and wildcards may provide
for some advantages.

> 3 - explain that practical EDNS0 limits could affect TXT where type
>     99 still works, but that trying both queries simultaneously and
>     pick the first answer is perfectly okay.

-0, it is possible, but brings no practical advantage.

jm2c