John Leslie wrote:
This statement is exactly correct.
Anything that eliminates use of an A/AAAA record changes this basic
flexibility.
This statement is not.
One could say, "Anything that eliminates the use of an A RR as a
substitute registration changes this flexibility."
What this reformulation misses is that using an A* record means that there is no
incremental registration requirement. Since the A* record is there for other
reasons, it means that being an email server only requires running the software.
So, what you are calling "substitution" is, in fact, requiring an email-specific
registration step that is not now present. In fact, it has already been
documented over the last few days that registering MXs can be problematic.
So the requirement "How should the intent to receive email for a
domain be signaled?" is, in fact, a very basic change to the core
Internet mail service model.
Funny, I thought it was a question.
There is currently no requirement to register intent. So to ask the question is
to look for a change to the model.
Dave is certainly entitled to an opinion that there shouldn't be
any such way -- thought I don't think that's _quite_ what he's saying.
It wasn't. I'm fine with providing an ability to state intent. I'm not fine
with requiring it.
(I wish he'd be a little clearer.)
So does he, but he's not likely to get any better at clarity.
But while we're discussing the subject, I see nothing wrong with
raising the issue. Perhaps somebody might become convinced that
active registration is worth encouraging.
As long as the discussion is decoupled from the *bis round of discussion, that's
dandy.
However, trying to squeeze that effort into the RFC2821bis process
is a good way to kill both.
... which makes me wonder why folks are so intent on squeezing an
extension of Implied-MX into this (hopefully) Draft Standard...
Well, after all, as long as we have the hood up,...
It's easy to get distracted.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net