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.