[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change

2008-03-31 09:20:11

Frank Ellermann wrote:
Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:

I get leery any time the specs assume that the guy running the mail server and the guy running the DNS server are on speaking

No matter what 2821bis will say, when IPv6 enters the picture
they need to talk.  The mail guy in an IPvX network will want
mail from non-IPvX networks.

Frank, the school of thought for a successful migration to IP6 will largely depend, at least initially, on the availability of dual stacks which will help in the smooth migration. From that standpoint and as well from having no real market pressures, I have felt no urgent need for radical changes or mad rush to implement direct support for IP6. It might be "simple" to discuss this from an admin standpoint, but from a engineering standpoint, systems who are going to mix will need to change their DNS clients software implementations radically. Those are the facts.

But I think overall, there are two discussions going on here.

  1) A vs AAAA fall backs, and
  2) Mandating MX for Email Security Policies

and as you know, the latter is part of the wishes of the ASP group.

I have long stop trying to figure things out here with the different motives people have. People speak from both sides but the SSP/ASP group was told long ago they were going to have a problem trying to mandate a MX record tied to EMAIL security. They ignored the warnings from SMTP developers in the SSP/ASP discussions and/or move the discussions to non WG rooms and now they are attempting to throw in their day late (and dollar short) last minutes wishes on 2821BIS in hope it will make their ASP proposal more viable.


Hector Santos, CTO