Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5228)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 15:08:36 -0800

Hi David,
At 11:33 AM 04-01-2018, RFC Errata System wrote:
>I have not reflowed the text so it can be more clear what I changed.
>
>         This mechanism is slow
>
>In fact, if all the DNS records are in place, Errata 5227 is accounted
>for, and the single PTR query is discounted, this mechanism produces
>no more additional DNS queries than mechanism "a".  I.e. it produces
>one A (or AAAA) query.  It is not slow.
>
>         it places a large burden on the .arpa name servers
>
>In fact, it requires 1 PTR query, for however many ptr mechanisms are
>in the SPF record.  Further, most mail servers already do this PTR
>query, to report the information on the "Received" line.  Even if a
>seperate daemon is used to the SPF check, the data should already be
>in a local caching name server.

If I understood correctly, this mechanism is not slow in your 
implementation.  That does not mean that it is not slow in other 
implementations.  I suggest rejecting this erratum.  If there is a 
future update to the RFC, the text in that section could be reviewed 
and a decision taken then.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy