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: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx -- --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