On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
> The debate over the MUST/SHOULD/MAY language with regard to compliance > and publication of TXT and SPF2 record types does not seem to be > getting the attention of the full working group. > > 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. > > Position 1 is predicated on the notion that a future RFC will deprecate > the (use of the) TXT record in favor of the SPF2 record. Position 2 > demands that the TXT record be discouraged from use in the current > -protocol document. > > Rather than wordsmithing the actual MUST/SHOULD/MAY language directly > (and endlessly), we ask the participants state their preference on > these positions.
I take middle position:
1.5) Specify everyone to be compliant at all times and tolerate non-compliance as a matter of fact (current reality) for a given period of time (next 4 years say).