Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 26 March 2008 08:44 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467E628C3CE; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gmbb2yOQ2m7I; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D3D28C421; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAFF28C3EE for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IwxyjXWKYZBO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206063A67EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JeRCZ-0008Pm-Jl; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:41:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:41:42 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>, SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Message-ID: <E8BC25B9A77418AAFBDCE171@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20080326072725.GA730@boreas.isi.edu>
References: <20080325133807.GA12616@boreas.isi.edu> <200803252230.m2PMURNF072389@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20080326023244.GB26917@boreas.isi.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20080325212302.02a7ac70@resistor.net> <20080326072725.GA730@boreas.isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 00:27 -0700 Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU> wrote: > what this daft is trying to do is force the presumptive > existance of an MX in a zone into an explict rule that > forces the existance of an MX, else SMTP fails. While several people have suggested that, it is not what the draft says and would be a significantly incompatible change. What the draft basically says is that, if there is no MX record present, one should go looking for the same domain name with an address record type and, if such a thing is found, construe the address record as if it were associated with an MX record with preference of zero. With one qualification, that has been the rule ever since RFC 974 was written. That rule was reaffirmed in RFC 1123. There was no change to it in 2821. At the time 974 and 1123 were written, the only sort of address record in Class=IN was an A RR, and those documents used "A RR" terminology. The change in 2821bis essentially substituted the phrase "address record" (or "address RR") for "A record" because (i) that seemed to be consensus on the list at that time and (ii) there is significant, although not universal, existing practice that is consistent with treating IPv4 (A) and IPv6 (AAAA) RRs the same way, at least with regard to SMTP. With that change to "address record", if no MX record is found, the SMTP client is required to look for DNS names with either A or AAAA RRs, rather than A RRs only. As far as I can tell, the _only_ real question here is whether that "either type of address record can be used as an implicit mail destination if no MX record is present" rule, which is now in the text, is the correct one. If it is not, then the only other option is to try to keep the implicit destination rule to A (IPv4) records only, which would essentially require that an MX record be present if one wanted to deliver mail to an IPv6 host. The questions of whether MX records should be generally required, what happens when an application chooses to ignore the MUST NOT rule in Section 5.1 and use address records when an MX record is present, and a number of other issues are, it seems to me, very interesting but not relevant here... if only because they would constitute very significant and incompatible changes from 2821 and to the installed base. There is, separately, some language in Section 2.3.5 about the types of domain names that can be used as FQDNs in mail sessions; I don't believe those rules are affected by this discussion either. >> We could look at the question by asking whether the fallback >> MX behavior should be an operational decision. But then we >> would be treating IPv4 and IPv6 differently. > > IPv4 and IPv6 are different. Bill, I don't know what you are advocating any more. It seems to me that, by saying that you want to be able to run a mail server without MX records and with IPv6 only (I think you said that, but maybe I understood), you are asking for exactly the behavior that is now in the specification, i.e., that either A or AAAA RRs can be used to form an implicit MX. For this purpose, that makes IPv6 and IPv4-related DNS records pretty much the same, no matter what the differences are between the protocols. In addition, the applications area has been told, repeatedly, that its protocols should, by default, treat IPv6 like IPv4, keeping any differences in treatment to a minimum. So, saying "IPv4 and IPv6 are different" at this stage, while true, does not seem sufficiently explanatory to be a useful contribution to the discussion. john _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-r… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pete Resnick
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Ned Freed
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Tony Finch
- Re: Lists and aliases (Re: Last Call: draft-klens… Ned Freed
- Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple Mail … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Simple M… Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Leslie
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Willie Gillespie
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Markku Savela
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Implicit MX and A RRs (was: Re: Last Call: draft-… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Tony Hansen
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Eliot Lear
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Willie Gillespie
- IPv6 incentive? RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Jim Fenton
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Conrad
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Hain
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs John C Klensin
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Matti Aarnio
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Joe Abley
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Morris
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Keith Moore
- RE: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis michael.dillon
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Implicit MX and A RRs Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Pekka Savola
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Ned Freed
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Theodore Tso
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis SM
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John Levine
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis David Morris
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Tony Finch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Bill Manning
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Tony Hansen
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Hector Santos
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Paul Smith
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Keith Moore
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Tom.Petch
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Hector Santos
- Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis: closing … Robert A. Rosenberg