--On Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:25 AM -0700 Lisa Dusseault
<lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
However, trying to squeeze that effort into the RFC2821bis
process is a good way to kill both.
It would be good to have wording for 2821bis that neither
consciously extends the A rule nor consciously doesn't extend
it. But I can't think of a way to do it.
WWTHD (What Would Ted Hardie Do): be blunt. "After much
discussion on the topic, this specification does not extend
the A rule to AAAA records, but neither does it preclude a
parallel treatment."
Lisa,
That leaves an ambiguity about behavior from which neither SMTP
clients nor domain administrators can figure out what to do.
To me, that ambiguity is the one case that is a showstopper.
It also, IMO, creates a "known technical defect" and that would
exclude even publishing something as Proposed, much less Draft.
I see no way to avoid making a choice.
I think I and several others have said this before, but I can
live with anything that (i) does not create an ambiguity and
(ii) does not deprecate the existing (back to 974) behavior.
john