Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821

Trevor Paquette wrote:

> Would it also be possible to state directly within the next
> revision of the RFC where or not this RFC overrides the 
> provision 10.3 of RFC 2181.
The Last Call for 2821bis ends 2007-12-24:

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-2821bis> is 2821bis,
and <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.announce/22584> is
a copy of the running Last Call.

> I don't want to leave things left to misinterpretation.
I've seen at least one flamewar about this on another list. 

 Frank