[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt

2008-04-17 18:04:16

Hi Keith,
At 14:17 17-04-2008, Keith Moore wrote:
My point is that we're getting tripped up by an artifact of the way that RFCs 974 was worded - and in the process we're making inferences about the interpretation of those words that probably weren't intended by the author. If RFC 974 had said

That's the problem with RFCs. No matter how the specifications are worded, they can give way to various interpretations. As the collective memory fades away, we try to guess the intent of the author.

...then I think we'd be paying attention to the salient issue in our discussions today - which is that "give it the benefit of the doubt" is no longer the right idea. (granted we still have the backward compatibility issue, but that's less important for v6 than for v4).

The only way to determine that would be to ask the author of that text. I think it's a bit far-fetched as we will never get this work done then.

p.s. Before sending this reply, I considered how I'd write the code in both cases - one where the "get MX records" routine returned an implicit MX in the case of no explicit MX records, and the other where it did not. Mostly the differences seem to be

The main problem stems from when you don't get NXDOMAIN.