Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

Frank Ellermann wrote:

> [...] it is clearly something that should be addressed in 4408bis:
>
> Apparently nobody intends to eliminate the ugly TXT abuse in v=spf1,
> because it's years too late to try it, or IOW, the wannabe-experiment
> failed to fix this.
>
> Possible ways to improve that situation in 4408bis:
>
> 1 - try the SHOULD type 99 approach again, a PS could succeed where
>     an "experiment" failed.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> I didn't look into RFC 4408 for some years, but IIRC (3) is allowed,
> or isn't it?

(3) is exactly what RFC 4408 already says.

I don't see any benefit in changing that in 4408bis.

I think RR type 99 won't be very useful in v=spf3 because using the TXT 
type with a name prefix (_spf) is clearly a better approach.

-Julian