Subject: RE: DEPLOY: DNS Record Types

From: "Jim Lyon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:16:30 -0700

On Friday, August 27, 2004 at 3:10 PM, David Blacka writes: 

> Why not:
>    SHOULD publish SPF2
>    MAY publish TXT
>    MUST publish at least one of the two.

Because if you publish an SPF2 record without a TXT record, those of us
who can't query for an SPF2 record will conclude that you didn't publish
anything.

-- Jim Lyon

---

From: David Blacka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:07:30 -0400

> who can't query for an SPF2 record will conclude that you didn't 

Just make it clear what it means to not publish the TXT or not publish 
the SPF2.  Then it is the publishers choice.

My real point was adding the 3rd line, not quibbling over whether TXT 
should be a MAY or a SHOULD.

--
David Blacka    <[email-masked]>
Sr. Engineer    Verisign Applied Research

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:35:12 -0700 (PDT)

> who can't query for an SPF2 record will conclude that you didn't publish

That is why we should have a MUST for looking up SPF RR record. Its
been shown (including with Microsoft products) that grabbing arbitrary
data type in dns (including new data type by its number) can be done
using existing low-level dns libraries. Its true that these "uknown" 
data types can not be interpreted by the library and will be just
a binary data but for the SPF data format that is exactly what
is needed and its up to the client to interpret it. So in my view
there is no reason why we should NOT have clients be REQUIRED to lookup
up new SPF RR records. But its additional matter that if they don't get 
the answer they may want to lookup TXT.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]