On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:38:54PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
If we are documenting practice and nothing more, then the publication
stream can move to informational and text can be added on why
a new RR, which would normally be expected here, is not being used
(essentially, inertia in the face of 15 years deployment).
If inertia over many years' deployment means that it's essentially
impossible to change things, then maybe it's hopeless to move to
IPv6... (Oh, wait.... maybe that's why.... Doh! :-)
Seriously, it's not obvious to me that it's *impossible* to change.
It wouldn't be that hard for DNSBL to carry the information via the
old and new RR records, with the new RR's carry additional information
--- and given that MTA's have to be configured to use a particular
DNSBL's, this is just one additional bit to indicate whether they
should use the old or new RR record --- and for bonus points, there
could be some way of querying the DNSBL, perhaps via a top-level TXT
or SOA record, to indicate whether a particular DNSBL supported the
new RR's or not.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf