On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:38:54PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: > If we are documenting practice and nothing more, then the publication > stream can move to informational and text can be added on why > a new RR, which would normally be expected here, is not being used > (essentially, inertia in the face of 15 years deployment). If inertia over many years' deployment means that it's essentially impossible to change things, then maybe it's hopeless to move to IPv6... (Oh, wait.... maybe that's why.... Doh! :-) Seriously, it's not obvious to me that it's *impossible* to change. It wouldn't be that hard for DNSBL to carry the information via the old and new RR records, with the new RR's carry additional information --- and given that MTA's have to be configured to use a particular DNSBL's, this is just one additional bit to indicate whether they should use the old or new RR record --- and for bonus points, there could be some way of querying the DNSBL, perhaps via a top-level TXT or SOA record, to indicate whether a particular DNSBL supported the new RR's or not. - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf