Subject: Re: [spfbis] #9: RFC 4408 SPF RR type

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Jul 2012 14:54:11 -0000

>Given the conclusions of the experiment draft, why are we continuing to
>even talk about the SPF RRTYPE?  I think 4408bis should drop it altogether.

If we don't at least mention it anywhere, some future readers may come
to the conclusion that we forgot about it.

If there's an appendix with changes since 4408, it would be fine to have one
line saying "removed type 99 RR" and leave it at that.

R's,
John

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:03:31 -0400

> line saying "removed type 99 RR" and leave it at that.

I would suggest something that offers less of a why? "scratch your 
head" statements especially for the existing systems that do currently 
support the query, like

   due to lack of technical feasibility, removed the optional type 99 
RR lookup
   This specification notes continue usage from a updated protocol 
standpoint is
   now considered DNS wasteful (inefficient) with less expectation for 
support
   of type 99 RR queries and responses.

It offers the idea that a) there was analysis done to reach this 
update design position, b) the use of the term "optional" suggest that 
it wasn't important anyway - nothing will break, the system (protocol) 
lives on and c) offers the encouragement to deployments to disable 
existing parallel queries and for implementators to make it obsolete 
not to consider it during their BIS update efforts.  New 
readers/implementators will less know the background.

-- 
HLS