Re: Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

>> > 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.
>>
> Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
>
>> TXT records with an _spf prefix is clearly a better approach than TXT
>> records without this prefix. That does IMHO not mean it is also a
>> better approach than using SPF RR. I am not necessarily saying the
>> opposite is true either(!)
>
> TXT-type with a name prefix is clearly better than SPF-type because the
> SPF type is still not as widely implemented as the TXT type, and the name
> prefix doesn't have significant disadvantages.  (All in the context of
> v=spf3, of course.  A prefix will never fly for v=spf1.)

Agreed, we should not try to "fix" spf1. But I think the _spf name prefix
is more for "v=spf1b", and we should also think about "v=spf3".

The choice to make now is: do we go for SPF policies in TXT records under
the _spf label of a domain, exclusive_or do we go for using the SPF record
type. Do not make the same mistake again, do not allow TXT and/or SPF.

As seen from an spf1 point of view, _spf.{$domain} is better than a TXT
record at {$domain}. And I tend to agree: an SPF record at {$domain} which
is nothing more than a disguised TXT record, is not the way to go.

But that does not mean we should not use it at all. If we go from ASCII
elements to a binary format, it can have advantages.

Dotzero wants to go standards track. This can happen anyway.  The options
I see right now are:

I: document the current work, no alterations, go for standard
II: document the current work, include the name prefix, apply some other
small fixes for lessons learned (e.g. PTR), and define "v=spf1b", as a
standard, only in TXT records
III: continue experimenting, building on the current experiment

I think III is not mutually exclusive with either I or II?
My preference would be a combination of II and III.

another 2c
Alex