Re: More about the SPF RRTYPE

Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

> [...]
> 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.

II is worthless because it would immediately abandon the entire deployed 
base of both v=spf1 records published and SPF implementations installed, 
without giving us the benefit of a full revisit and overhaul that v=spf3 
could give us.

To be even more explicit:  At this time I do not care about anything but 
getting v=spf1 on the Standards Track as-is (with only the minimum set of 
changes required to achieve the goal).  There is a very large deployed 
base, and that should be recognized as a standard.

-Julian