On 27 Mar 2008, at 20:38 , Mark Andrews wrote: >> OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of >> sense, but >> not, of course, in 2821bis. > > Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical? I would prefer to see the "empty field" intention implicit in "MX 0 ." codified with more generality, so that (to give just two examples) it can also be used in the MNAME field of SOA RDATA to indicate "I do not accept dynamic updates", or in the RNAME to indicate "there is no mailbox published in this RR". Joe _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf