Re: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/11/2004 1:59 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:

> 2) On the issue of compliance with the use of the TXT record, the 
> working group has at least rough consensus that TXT usage is acceptable 
> for compliance and should not be specified as a configuration that will 
> be non-compliant.  However, there is at least rough consensus that the 
> use of the SPF-specific record type is more desirable than the use of a 
> TXT record type.  It is the opinion of the co-chairs that the -protocol 
> document clearly state that the usage of TXT records will most likely 
> be deprecated by future protocol definition.

I don't think that's good enough and would offer an alternative:

 * specs sent to last call MUST include a new RRType code

 * an addendum or a sibling spec MAY describe coexistence mechs for
   a TXT RR for backwards compatibilty

This model ensures that future implementations cannot claim "compliance"
until they fix whatever bugs are keeping them from using the new RRType,
while also providing a support channel for legacy implementations.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/