Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
> 
> > If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
> > by banning bare AAAA records that's perfectly fine with me.
> 
> FWIW, I'd like that...
> 
> >> Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_ 
> >> by limiting discovery to just A and MX records.  Perhaps a
> >> note might be included that at some point in the future MX
> >> records may become required.
>  
> > Again, I have no problem with this approach if that's what
> > the consensus is.
> 
> ...and that, too.  

	so what is supposed to happen when I remove all
	"A" RR's from my zones?

> > Another point in favor of not allowing bare AAAA records
> > for mail routing.
> [...]
> >> The only valid solution would be to indicate that AAAA 
> >> records as a discovery mechanism may not be supported and
> >> should not be used for this purpose.  Use MX records instead.
>  
> > Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The question
> > is whether there's a consensus to resolve the ambiguity in
> > this fashion.
> 
> Checking about 63 articles on the SMTP list mentioning "AAAA",
> some from the early '90s, they're about TLDs, CNAME, MX, SPF,
> and what else.  I found no message clearly saying "but I want
> no MX for my AAAA".  I vaguely recall that somebody mentioned
> an implementation doing this, but that is not the same as "I
> insist on an AAAA fallback", and IIRC it was only one poster.
> 
>  Frank
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
--bill

Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf