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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
We'll give the discussion about one more week and then make a consensus
decision. So speak up now.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 22:41 +1100 Mark Andrews
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
