John Levine wrote:
The question is whether ADSP should define what domain
existence means, or defer to other definitions.
Saying what result NXDOMAIN means can't be seriously wrong.
RFC 4408 uses "rcode 3", not "NXDOMAIN". If you like that
better it is okay, as defined in RFC 1035. So let's add
RFC 1035 to the normative references, and be done with it.
Nobody wanted to "redefine" NXDOMAIN, this is just a name
for "rcode 3" in a header file.
Inventing our own definition is, as I think I've said in
other messages, a rather severe case of mission creep.
Doug's proposal wrt q=mx would be mission creep, the stuff
that didn't make it into 2821bis, and ADSP isn't the place
to try it again, his proposal needs its own RFC.
If the q=mx recipe could be confused with more ambitious
concepts let's use another example, or no example at all:
Implementors are supposed to know how this works, and if
they don't know it they can read RFC 1035.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html