[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-02-29 19:01:01

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mark 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:05 AM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to
CNAME and >(mis)interpretation of 2821)

SM wrote:
   When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and
   the associated data field obtained, the data field of that
   response MUST contain a fully-qualified domain name.  That
   fully-qualified domain name, when queried, MUST return at
   least one address record (e.g., A or AAAA RR) that gives the
   IP address of the SMTP server to which the message should
   be directed.  Any other response,  specifically including a
   value that will return a CNAME record when queried, lies
   outside the scope of this standard.  The prohibition on CNAME
   RRs is discussed in more detail in RFC 2181, Section 10.3 [29].

That looks like a good compromise to me.
I'd remove the word 'specifically', it makes me read the statement
more than once to be sure of its meaning, and is probably redundant.


As the culprit who actually started all of this... (sorry!). I like this
one the best.

The creation of standards and (unfortunately) the implementation thereof
can be two very different things based on someone's interpretation. This
paragraph (or how I interpret it anyway) eliminates this possibility.

I've enjoyed reading everyone's view on this; good opinions all around.