Subject: Re: [dnsext] full standards, Deprecating SPF

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:58:54 -0400

Andras Salamon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:53:29PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>> If you think it's important to move it to full standard, why don't you
>> do somthing about it?  A quick look suggests that 3597 meets the
>> requirements in sec 2.2 of RFC 6410 I wouldn't think that it'd be hard
>> to persuade someone on the IESG to sponsor the required last call.
> 
> Ólafur Gudmundsson nominated RFC 3597 to advance from Proposed to
> Draft Standard in message <6.1.0.6.2.20040819092046.02d2dec0@localhost>
> of 19 Aug 2004.  This was based on -00 of Jakob Schlyter's draft,
> of which the most recent version is from May 2005:
>    http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt
> 
> Since Jakob already did an important part of the work, I would
> first like to understand what happened to the advancement request,
> especially in light of the two revisions of the interoperability
> report after the request.  Does anyone have pointers?
> 
> (I know that PS/DS were merged a couple of years ago, but would still
> like to understand how the PS->DS process went, and if it failed, why.)

I appreciate this level of work to see why it fell through the cracks. 
I believe it is one of the IETF growing lack of diversity issues, 
i.e., improving electronic communications, collaborations and 
networking among industry peers.

This should be a project leader(s) responsibility to make sure the 
basic technology requirements are realistic or not, i.e., consult and 
get input from the DNS industry vendors, make them aware and/or to 
find out why this has not happen yet.

For example, why hasn't Microsoft supported RFC 3597 yet?  You will be 
surprise that a well respected Microsoft DNS Expert and MVP (Most 
Valuable Player) was unaware of such needs, nor was his microsoft 
contacts and the MSDNS beta team based on a discussion with him:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsserver/en-US/5841e884-db22-42a1-8530-615a375662cc/dns-server-support-for-new-or-unamed-rr-type-records

This was back in March/April 2012.

If Microsoft isn't going to bother to add direct support for the SPF 
type99 RR, nor support RFC 3597 at the very least, I believe this 
matter is decided and closed. TXT only is proper for SPFBIF and for 
future DNS applications as well.

I am sure there are key IETF decision makers with Microsoft DNS 
product manager contacts who can find out whats going on to help 
resolve this LC issue.

--
HLS