On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, John C Klensin wrote:
I also prefer (2) because I don't think the original "A
fallback" was meant to stay there very long and we just never
got around to deprecating that feature. If you ask a random
sampling of postmasters and DNS domain owners, I doubt many
would even remember right off the bat that such a fallback
Based on some small experience with email deployment and
operations, I believe that you are wrong. Indeed, if you asked
a random sampling of those groups --remembering that there are a
huge number of SMTP servers in the world, only a tiny fraction
of which are professional operations and with an even smaller
fraction being large-scale, carefully-managed production ones,
you might discover that many of them had forgotten that there
was such a thing as an MX record and how to set it up.
Point taken, but I don't believe this really applies to IPv6 yet.
Certainly, one could go around this loop for months, with people
repeating themselves in ever-louder ways, but do you really
think that would move us forward or result in a better or
IMO, it is time to decide and move on. Like several others, I
think it is more important to decide than what the decision is.
Days would be good. Maybe a week or so is tolerable. But
certainly not months.
I was not precise and you misunderstood. I was saying "timescale of
months" because I didn't want "timescale of years". (I've been a bit
disappointed with IETF's speed of progress lately and the latter seems
to be the timescale we're working with in any consensus process
whatsoever.) Faster is fine with me if the document shepherd, editor
and the AD manage to read the consensus and decide on the right
approach in that time.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
IETF mailing list