As the shepherd/pseudo-chair for 2821bis effort, our plan of action is
going to be as follows:
*) the implicit MX issue needs to be resolved.
*) there are a few other small items that need to be resolved that
will be detailed on the ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org list
We'll give the discussion about one more week and then make a consensus
decision. So speak up now.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 22:41 +1100 Mark Andrews
<Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
...
It would be needed until IPv6 takes over.
It will be needed even *after* IPv6 takes over. There will
be lots of queries for A records long after the majority
of hosts don't have A records.
We need to remove the implict MX from A to prevent the A
record lookups occuring as things currently stand.
Mark,
Whether that proposal is a good one or a bad one, it can't be
done in 2821bis because that is a document moving from Proposed
to Draft Standard and the implicit MX feature is _very_ widely
deployed and used. So, IMO, this discussion is not directly
relevant to the (already closed) Last Call on 2821bis and should
probably be move to the ietf-smtp mailing list.
Second, no matter what is done with standardization, it will be
many, many years before one could count on those A RR lookups
not occurring -- too much software out that that is very rarely
updated. The advantage of the "MX 0 ." approach over getting
rid of the implicit MX from A is that, if there were consensus
for it, it can be deployed in less than geological time.
But, either way, it seems to me that the correct (and only
feasible) actions start with an I-D that says something useful
and is discussed on, at least, the ietf-smtp list.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf