John C Klensin wrote: > if we stick with Option 1 and the language isn't clear enough, > the relevant sentence can be supplemented with an explicit > statement to the effect that any values that point to CNAMEs > that appear are nonconformant and out of the scope of the > standard.
That would be good and hopefully address Trevor's concerns in <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/6517/focus=6525> Paul Smith proposed 2007-12-14 (getting two ACKs): | 2821bis should state that "putting CNAMES as the target of | MX records is not allowed, as stated in RFC 2181" > the historical reason for the prohibition on names that point > to CNAME RRs in the data field of MX RR was, I believe, to > reduce the risk of looping within the DNS. The explanation in RFC 974 is more convoluted, something about figuring out what's LOCAL and what's REMOTE. Frank
