Subject: TECH-ERROR: Name of SPF2 record

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:46:22 +0100

I'm against including the major version number of the protocol in the
name of the RR type.  The '2' should not be there.

_If_ the designers of a future standard decide they need a new
typecode, they are free to do so.

But I think versioning a protocol in the typecode is probably a bad
idea, and doing so from the outset doubly so.

I propose that the record simply be called SPF.

      -roy

---

From: Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:34:47 -0700

> I propose that the record simply be called SPF.

This has been proposed several times on this list before.  Since I have 
seen only only dissent from the idea, assuming the chairs agree that 
there is general consensus on this, I'll make this change.

	- Mark

Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[email-masked]

---

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:40:10 +0100

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]> writes:

    Mark> Since I have seen only only dissent from the idea, assuming
    Mark> the chairs agree that there is general consensus on this,
    Mark> I'll make this change.

I'm assume there must be a typo in the above :-)

    -roy

---

From: Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:25:32 -0700

> This has been proposed several times on this list before.  Since I 
> have seen only only dissent from the idea, assuming the chairs agree 
> that there is general consensus on this, I'll make this change.

Ach!  Since I have seen only ** one ** dissent...

	- Mark