At 06:29 17/01/2008, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
a) when RFC 2821 was written IPv6 existed and RFC 2821 acknowledged
its existance. It did DID NOT say synthesize from .
RFC 2821 only talks about IPv6 domain literals. The MX resolution
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
a) when RFC 2821 was written IPv6 existed and RFC 2821 acknowledged
its existance. It did DID NOT say synthesize from .
RFC 2821 only talks about IPv6 domain literals. The MX resolution
algorithm in section 5 is written as if in
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
Since when has Informational been equivalent to Standard?
Since (a) there is no standards-track specification to override it, and
(b) all implementations follow RFC 3974, and (c) it's the obvious
extension of v4 behaviour to v6. I should have said
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Tony Finch wrote:
I should have said in my previous message that not only do the most
popular MTAs fall back to , but BIND also includes in the
additional section of MX replies, which re-inforces the RFC 3974
interpretation.
Er, no it doesn't. I should have had
Tony Finch wrote:ed, 16 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
Since when has Informational been equivalent to Standard?
Since (a) there is no standards-track specification to override
it, and (b) all implementations follow RFC 3974, and (c) it's
the obvious extension of v4 behaviour to v6.
That
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
Since when has Informational been equivalent to Standard?
Since (a) there is no standards-track specification to override it, and
(b) all implementations follow RFC 3974, and (c) it's the obvious
extension of v4 behaviour to v6. I should have
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
Since there is no [MX] fallback to
Wrong. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg49841.html
Tony.
Since when has Informational been equivalent to Standard?
Synthesizing a MX record on NODATA to a MX
