On 27 Mar 2008, at 20:38 , Mark Andrews wrote:
OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of
sense, but
not, of course, in 2821bis.
Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical?
I would prefer to see the "empty field" intention implicit in "MX 0 ."
codified with more generality, so that (to give just two examples) it
can also be used in the MNAME field of SOA RDATA to indicate "I do not
accept dynamic updates", or in the RNAME to indicate "there is no
mailbox published in this RR".
Joe
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf