On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> The same thing that happens today with zones that don't
> have A records. You use MX records to refer to machines
> that have address (A and/or AAAA) records.
er... what about zones w/ A & AAAA rr's and no MX's?
when I pull the A rr's, you are telling me that SMTP
stops working? That is so broken.
--bill
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--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
