On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:23AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Ned Freed wrote:
>
> > If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had
> > by banning bare AAAA records that's perfectly fine with me.
>
> FWIW, I'd like that...
>
> >> Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_
> >> by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a
> >> note might be included that at some point in the future MX
> >> records may become required.
>
> > Again, I have no problem with this approach if that's what
> > the consensus is.
>
> ...and that, too.
so what is supposed to happen when I remove all
"A" RR's from my zones?
> > Another point in favor of not allowing bare AAAA records
> > for mail routing.
> [...]
> >> The only valid solution would be to indicate that AAAA
> >> records as a discovery mechanism may not be supported and
> >> should not be used for this purpose. Use MX records instead.
>
> > Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The question
> > is whether there's a consensus to resolve the ambiguity in
> > this fashion.
>
> Checking about 63 articles on the SMTP list mentioning "AAAA",
> some from the early '90s, they're about TLDs, CNAME, MX, SPF,
> and what else. I found no message clearly saying "but I want
> no MX for my AAAA". I vaguely recall that somebody mentioned
> an implementation doing this, but that is not the same as "I
> insist on an AAAA fallback", and IIRC it was only one poster.
>
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
