Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4295A28C264; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:12:26 -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 61CDB28C217 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 snyrIk7vA9M4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC4E28C26F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 84789 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2008 19:12:23 -0000
Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Jul 2008 19:12:23 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jul 2008 19:12:23 -0000
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0807081940180.8138@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0807081505400.486@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080707133210.AWH55905@m1.imap-partners.net> <alpine.LSU.1.00.0807081940180.8138@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> So the question of whether TLD MXs work depends on the interactions
> between lot of complicated option settings and software versions, and is
> likely in practice to work or fail unpredictably.

That sounds utterly reasonable.

To me the bigger question is whether this failure scenario is something 
the IETF needs to address, or is it is sufficiently localized that it's 
something that just another thing a domain owner should deal with.

Personally, I don't think that foo@ai -> foo@ai.mit.edu is a major issue, 
because in recent years mail addressing has gotten rather flat, most DNS 
resolvers are configured via DHCP, and I don't get the impression that 
they have any search lists at all.  Search lists were useful 15 or 20 
years ago, but not now.  It would be interesting to hear from people 
running mail systems who were NOT running them ten years ago, to avoid the 
selection bias of people whose configuration preferences were set on the 
T1 backbone.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf