[Top] [All Lists]

Re: not delivering, and History of fallback to A

2008-04-01 02:32:07

(I dropped all the CCs - the list grew long.)

Dave Crocker writes:
ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Not exactly. The issue isn't what to do in general, it's what to do in this document. I have no problem with someone starting an MX . effort or a require MX effort and seeing if they can get consensus on it. (If the former gets started I plan to support it, the latter I'll oppose.) It just doesn't belong
 in 2821bis.


I would +1 if I thought 2821bis could ignore this, but unfortunately I think that 2821 has to choose: Consciously extend the A rule to cover AAAA, or consciously not extend it.

As with Ned, I suspect we are going to be long-retired, and possibly long-dead, before v4 use reduces sufficiently to be ignored.

I suspect none of us will be retired by the time IPv6-only hosts/devices appear.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: not delivering, and History of fallback to A, Arnt Gulbrandsen <=