Subject: TECH-ERROR: Duplication of version number as part of the name for SPF2 dns record (this is possibly TECH-OMISSION)

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:54:53 -0700 (PDT)

In the draft-eitf-marid-protocol-02.txt in section 2.1 an example is given 
of SPF record as

example.com.  IN SPF2 "spf2.0/pra +mx +a:colo.examp.e.com/28 -all"

It is noteable that "spf2" part is repeated twice once as the name of the 
dns type and second time as a version of the record. I do not believe such 
duplication is appropriate because dns record type should be more general
then the version number of the spf record and should not incorporate spf 
record version as part of the type name.  

To fix it is recomended that all references to SPF dns record type and 
examples be changed from "SPF2" to just "SPF" with note in the text that 
such dns type records should confront to SPF2.0 or later records. So above
example would change to:

example.com.  IN  SPF "spf2.0/pra +mx +a:colo.examp.e.com/28 -all"

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Rand Wacker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:07:32 -0700 (PDT)

> example.com.  IN  SPF "spf2.0/pra +mx +a:colo.examp.e.com/28 -all"

This would have the potential of creating *exactly* the same dataspace
problems as stuffing all the different versions in a TXT record, and would
IMO be a bad engineering decision.

-Rand

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT)

> IMO be a bad engineering decision.

I disagree. First of this field is the same no matter how its called, so 
potential is exactly the same. Second, I do not believe version number 
identifier belongs in the dns type name, this is exactly the bad 
engineering decision. But if you want to put it then, then you should 
remove it from the data portion field and get rid of dupliction.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:13:08 +0100

>>>>> "Rand" == Rand Wacker <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> To fix it is recomended that all references to SPF dns record
    >> type and examples be changed from "SPF2" to just "SPF" with
    >> note in the text that such dns type records should confront to
    >> SPF2.0 or later records. So above example would change to:
    >> 

    Rand> This would have the potential of creating *exactly* the same
    Rand> dataspace problems as stuffing all the different versions in
    Rand> a TXT record, and would IMO be a bad engineering decision.

Possibly.  I think that the engineering decision as to whether version
3 should use the same typecode or a new one should be left up to the
designers of version 3 -- there is little point in debating it now,
given we have no idea what version 3 might be.

But given this is going to be the first SPF-syntax record to be
defined, I'm in favour of just calling it SPF.  If version 3 wants to
use it, they can.  If they want a new typecode, they can define SPF3.

Calling it SPF2 doesn't prevent version 3 from using it, but it will
make the naming look a bit silly if the designers of version 3 make
that decision.

     -roy