Subject: RE: Alternative to TXT or new RR was: Comments on draft-ietf-marid-core-01 xml use

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:51:50 -0400

At 13:37 -0700 6/11/04, Michel Py wrote:
>
>You lost me. What is the relation with ISC's dhcpd?
>Besides, why does it matter?

The point was that MARID can't claim the TXT record as it's own.

At 23:15 -0700 6/10/04, Michel Py wrote:
>II. At the same time, we obsolete the RFCs describing the
>TXT RR and replace them with new text that says:
>
>   i) The TXT RR is now reserved for SPFID and you can't put
>      anything you want in it anymore; anything that would go
>      into the TXT record needs to be cleared by MARID first.

ISC's DHCP implementation is one thing that uses the TXT RR (and as 
far as I know, not spec'd by a std).  I know of other experimental 
uses of the TXT RR, for one, opportunistic encryption.  There is an 
RFC in preparation to document that.

So, MARID can't claim the TXT for it's own - others already use it.

And the fact that one of these of the TXT RR is spec'd in any IETF 
document (so far as I have been able to tell), reliance on TXT in a 
proposed standard chancy - in my opinion.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Even the voices inside my head are refusing to talk to me anymore.

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:48:00 -0500

> proposed standard chancy - in my opinion.

I agree, MARID can't claim the TXT RR for it's own.  Not only do
others already use it, but there will be new uses for it in the
future.  I think that if MARID uses the TXT record, it must "play
fair" by keeping the records as short as possible, making them
distinctive, and placing in parts of the DNS tree that don't cause
conflicts.

I have mentioned several times that before the interim meeting, I did a
scan of 1.3 million email domains (e.g. places that would likely be
checked for SPF records).  I found that the usage of TXT records isn't
that high, almost all domains have enough space left in the 512B UDP
DNS packet that you can add SPF records without problems.  Of the
dozen or so domains that would need TCP, half are already over the
limit.

Ed mentioned two different examples of existing usage.  In the survey,
I found 13 examples of the ISC DHCP records.  These records are short
and distinctive, so I think they play fair with the limited TXT resources.

I found 8 examples of what I would guess are the opportunistic
encryption.  Those records are so long that, hmmm, I guess they
account for most of the domains that can't add SPF records without
going to TCP.  Those records are distinctive, but are way too long.
They certainly need their own RR type, and may need to be shorten up
even then.

For those who are interested in lightly cooked data, you can download
a list of all the text records that I found at:
http://www.midwestcs.com/dns_txt_rr.text

Note that some domains had many records, and each of these are listed
once.  I have also collapsed similar records and the leading number is
the count of those records.  For example, all valid SPF records are
collapsed into one line, even though there are many different
variations.  This will give you a good idea of what is out there that
SPF records will have to co-exist with.

-wayne

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:56:20 -0400

At 18:48 -0500 6/11/04, wayne wrote:
>encryption. ...
...
>They certainly need their own RR type, and may need to be shorten up

OE is defining their own type:
         http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipseckey-charter.html
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I can't go to Miami.  I'm expecting calls from telemarketers." -
Grandpa Simpson.

---

From: Matthew Elvey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:52:38 -0700

Groan.  The pros and cons of using TXT were discussed at the interim 
meeting, and if memory serves, no compelling argument for abandoning TXT 
was made, and compelling arguments against alternatives were discussed.  
Ed presented his arguments and few if any bought them.  The alternatives 
were all shot down and Ed couldn't revive 'em, and the issues with TXT 
have all been addressed (e.g. by wayne's stats)!  At least my (perhaps 
biased) recollection is that Ed backed down.  Let's move on. (or 
squarely address the issues already raised, pro and con, instead of 
irrelevancies like "MARID can't claim the TXT record as it's <sic> own"). 
MARID is likely gonna use TXT; there's no alternative, the sky will not 
fall, and the issues are not dealbreakers.

Bob Atkinson wrote in the same thread:
> Let's be clear; this is NOT the plan of record in the
> current draft. Rather, MARID is claiming the COMBINATION
> of a particular domain prefix and TXT as it's own.
"the current draft"?  
Let's be clear: a small subgroup of MARID is working on a particular draft; others are working on other drafts. 
There is nothing even approaching a consensus that suggests that any particular draft is 'the one'.

e.g. I think a poll on "Would you support 
a standard based on a merger of SPF and CID (using A, B and C from SPF 
and XML, E and F from CID) as a good solution to the problem MARID intends 
to solve?" would find that the majority answer would be NO.  

If that isn't clear, then I hope there's a hum on this soon!

There was a hum at the last meeting, but it asked was basically: "Do 
you think it would be valuable to merge SPF's semantics with CID's use 
of 2822.From and the new RFROM, in a new set of specs with the layers 
broken out?"

wayne wrote:

>Since
>the interim meeting, all 2821 proposals are now out of scope.

---

From: Matthew Elvey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:52:18 -0700

On 6/14/2004 10:52 PM, Matthew Elvey sent forth electrons to convey:

> <excess vitriol>

Sorry, I missed Ed's later "Re: Towards resolution on Wildcards" post 
from this morning, and other recent substantive comments.
Yum, shoe leather.