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

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After reading this:
> On Sep 3, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> > I am not sure how #1 differs from #2? Are you suggesting that if we
> > adopt position #1, someone not having SPF RR records would be ignored?
>
> My interpretation of the thread is "might be ignored".

I did not infer that implication myself.

And after careful consideration I am going to have to change my vote to (2), I cannot accept
condoning of ignoring published SPF records (regardless of RR type).

Sorry for any confusion.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fax: (416) 441-9085


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:43 PM
> To: 'Andrew Newton'; 'IETF MARID WG'
> Subject: RE: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records
>
>
>
> I vote for position 1, future RFC should deprecate TXT record
> AFTER a SPF RR is approved and
> implemented in DNS servers.
>
> Terry Fielder
> Manager Software Development and Deployment
> Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
> terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fax: (416) 441-9085
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:34 PM
> > To: IETF MARID WG
> > Subject: consensus call on MUST/SHOULD language for TXT records
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -your co-chairs
> >
>