Re: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records

[wietse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Wietse Venema)]

mazieres@xxxxxxxxx:
> 
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:33:48 -0400, Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Despite lack of agreement on the outcome, there is agreement on the
> > stated positions.  In the words of Olafur:
> > 1) Specify everyone to be compliant at all times.
> > 2) Specify clearly full complaint state and tolerate non-compliant
> > state during phase-in.
> 
> I would favor position 2.  I think the recommended document should
> describe where we want to be in the long run, whether or not we can
> get there quickly.  While I strongly suspect Sender ID will undergo
> future revisions anyway, why intentionally adopt a standard that will
> have to be superseded?

I second this. The document should bless the usage of TXT records
during the initial deployment phase. It does not need to define
the time schedule for the txt -> spf transition.

	Wietse