SPF RR type

[Mark Andrews]

In message <20140605230244.5929.qmail at joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> 
> In article <mailman.348.1401978387.26362.bind-users at lists.isc.org> you write:
> >Are SPF RR types finally dead or not? I've read through rfc7208 it appears that they are:
> 
> They're dead as in nobody looks at them other than legacy software
> that hasn't been updated.  The SPF record was a screwup from beginning
> to end.  By the time 4408 came out, there was already a lot of running
> SPF software using the badly designed TXT record.  The mail community
> never wanted the SPF record but it was added reluctantly to 4408 due
> to filibustering by the DNS crowd.  There was never a plausible
> transition plan for publishing SPF records, and by the time 7208 came
> out it was clearly time to put type 99 out of its misery.*
> 
> It's extremely unlikely that the RRTYPE will ever be reused, so you
> can publish them if you want, but don't expect anyone to pay attention
> to them.  Perhaps they can be reused for steganography.
> 
> R's,
> John

And there is no plan to transition from SPF back to TXT other than
the exact same plan as there was to transition from TXT to SPF.

i.e. publish a RFC and hope people follow it.

It takes years to do transitions like this.  TXT to SPF was actually
ramping up but that is now water under the bridge. 

> * - Mark doubtless feels differently.
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org