Hi Keith, I've been working with Tony and John very closely on this issue, and whether it smells foul or not, I think this is the best we can do. Tony was very diligent about having conversation on all aspects and looking at a number of different resolutions including the one he recommends. The goal of updating RFC2821 to keep it relevant is certainly one, but only one, of a bunch of constraints and criteria. "Consensus" and "Timeliness" are two others which are in play for this particular issue. We have no clear consensus for changes that would make RFC2821bis more relevant on this particular issue, and we have already lost much time. If you believe you can drive consensus on this issue to a different resolution, please take that on yourself and we'll participate and pay attention. Thanks, Lisa On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > > Dave Crocker wrote: > >> Tony Hansen wrote: >>> From this viewpoint, running code wins. >>> >>> I'm also swayed by the principle of "least surprise". >> ... >>> Last of all, I'm swayed by the discussions around RFC 974 and the >>> DRUMS >>> archive search >> ... >>> So the bottom line is that I see sufficient support for including >>> AAAA >>> lookups when implicit MX comes into play. >> >> Wow. >> >> Diligently thorough. Carefully reasoned. Historically solid. >> (Running >> code that interoperated was what resolved a problem with checksum for >> the original TCP spec...) > > and it completely ignored the entire purpose for updating 2821 - to > keep > it relevant. > > I call foul. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf