Message-Id: <199601240544.VAA06723@netscape.com>
To: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
cc: "Eric Norman (MACC)" <EJNORMAN@macc.wisc.edu>,
        Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:09:15 PST."
             <MailManager.822460155.28248.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> 
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:42:59 -0800
From: Prabhat Keni <pkeni@iapp9.mcom.com>


Strongly agree about both domain literals and group syntax.  Encrypted
seems like a stretch.  Question: Presently, how often does one typically
deal with Encrypted?  We havent seen any for a while, although one sees the
other two pretty frequently.

-- 
Prabhat Keni.


Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:


> On Tue, 23 Jan 96 23:01 CDT, Eric Norman (MACC) wrote:
>> I think domain literals should be eliminated.  They've been deprecated
>> ever since day one; it's time to just say bye-bye to 'em.

> I object to this.  Domain literals are invaluable when the DNS is broken,
> or for logging purposes.

> It may be alright to unify the IN-ADDR.ARPA and domain literals syntax,
> but the function itself is necessary.

>> There are other things that should go also.  Two that I can think of
>> offhand are the Encrypted: header and the group:; construct.

> I object *very* strongly to any move to deprecate group syntax.  We use
> it.

> The Encrypted: header sure does seem to be useless.  But, I recently came
> up with a possible use for it; as a *fast* way to determine whether a
> message has encrypted contents without looking deeper into the message's
> MIME structure.