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 > IETF@xxxxxxxx > 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 IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf