[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-02-24 11:50:20

On Feb 24, 2008, at 1:06 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
I am a little dubious about the practical likelihood of the sentence starting with "Such responses...", but don't see it as harmful. Any such extension would, of course, have to update 2181 or equivalent as well as extending SMTP.

My $0.02 worth:

I think you're right that's dubious that what this sentence implies would ever come into play. My concern would be that some idiot will say "Well, see, right there is says that the times are a'changin', and you're gonna have to accept it sooner or later", even though that's not at all the intent of that sentence.

I think that what you're saying in that sentence is true -- that a future RFC/STD could in theory make it permissible to do -- but I also feel that doesn't need to be said. After all, RFCs have been superseding other RFCs for years. This document doesn't need to grant permission to its descendants to do so.

That said, I don't think that verbiage is the end of the world (and its encapsulating para is a world of improvement). IMHO, I would drop that sentence. But I could live with it, grudgingly, if that was the price of moving this forward quickly.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>