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 ietf-smtp@xxxxxxx list We'll give the discussion about one more week and then make a consensus decision. So speak up now. Tony Hansen tony@xxxxxxx John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Wednesday, 26 March, 2008 22:41 +1100 Mark Andrews > <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> 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 IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf