[Top] [All Lists]

The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interpretation of 2821)

2008-02-24 14:00:48


After further thought and several comments (some off-list) from people who don't feel that it is a showstopper one way or the other but would prefer to see it go, I propose the following.

This will make no sense unless you have read notes from the earlier thread today.

The current sentence reads

   "Such responses could, in principle, be covered by an SMTP
   extension in the future."

Since there is a normative DNS prohibition on CNAME targets (in RFC2181), that sentence is, strictly speaking, untrue. It could be corrected by saying:

   "Such responses could, in principle, be covered by DNS
   changes or extensions and an SMTP extension in the future."

Or we could drop it. My instinct at the moment (i.e., I reserve the right to change my mind) is that dropping it would be better. Given the language that already occurs elsewhere in 2821/ 2821bis about the things that extensions can change, it doesn't really add any information. And, unlike the original form, this is started to get convoluted. 2821bis already has enough of a surplus of convoluted text and another instance, while not a horrible precedent, is not needed.

I'd like to hear from John Leslie, who originally suggested putting something like that in. If he is now persuaded that it should be dropped, I'd find that convincing and perhaps others would as well. On the other hand, if he has a strong argument for retaining it (presumably in the revised form above), we should all hear and consider it.


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