Subject: RE: consensus call of RR prefix

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:35:17 -0700

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 9:48 PM
> Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> I would add to that that others in the IETF may use MARID as a 
> precendent to argue for the use of TXT record. This may 
> quickly increase 
> the possible number of them. Therefore, I am for the prefix as well.

I beleive that prefixing is very likely to be necessary. 
Pragmatically however we loose backwards compatibility with the
deployed base.

I think that if we take any step that loses backwards 
compatibility then we should introduce a prefix. So if we have
versioning then we should have a prefix.

Losing backwards compatibilty for the sake of a prefix does 
not seem like a good deal.

What I would like to do is to drop the idea of a new RR tag,
and define a prefix for use with the TXT record to be introduced
in the same way. In my view the RR tag value defines a syntax,
the prefix defines a semantics. There is no need to introduce
a new RR tag unless you require a new syntax, which MARID does
not.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:40:42 -0700

> BTW - I now support that both TXT and SPF RR records be done 
> in SRV way:
>  _smtp._tcp.example.com.  IN   TXT   "SPF2.0/PRA ..."
>  _smtp._tcp.example.com.  IN   SPF   "SPF2.0/PRA ..."

I would support this as well. 

What we have here is a set of policy extensions that are bound
to ONE protocol. Over time all protocols are going to require
a similar mechanism to allow them to advertise their security 
policy.

If we define the special case we will inevitably end up defining
the general case in due course, sure as SRV followed MX.

	Phill