Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA08745; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:57:29 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:56:53 -0500 Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA08712; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 16:56:51 -0500 Received: from UW-Gateway.Panda.COM by Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (NX5.67f2/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA03050; Wed, 24 Jan 96 13:56:40 -0800 Received: from localhost by Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (NX5.67e/UW-NDC/Panda Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA20810; Wed, 24 Jan 96 13:56:29 -0800 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:30:42 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin Sender: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals To: "Eric Norman (MACC)" Cc: perry@piermont.com, drums@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: <26012415230627@vms3.macc.wisc.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed, 24 Jan 96 15:23 CDT, Eric Norman (MACC) wrote: > First of all, we're talking mainly about RFC822. What purpose do > domain literals serve there? We answered this. Domain literals are the form of host identity which is guaranteed to be valid. It's all fine and dandy when someone at a well-connected location talks about how we don't need any fallbacks because failures never happen. That doesn't reflect the real world. > Secondly, the argument seems to be that we must have a method to get mail > through anyway when the DNS is broken. Who is "we"? The people who responded are some of the most respected and senior names in the field of Internet email, including some very important software developers. > Are people > suggesting that an average user or a UA should be able to detect that > the domain system is broken and switch to domain literals? Not necessarily users, but UAs and MTAs do this now. A deprecation of domain literals would have the effect of telling those UA/MTA authors that they should eliminate that capability from their program. > I'll bet that the only folks that use domain literals are system > administrators and they usually know how to telnet to port 25 and > get mail thru anyway. I find this statement somewhat offensive. It's completely wrong, and it suggests hostility to those of us who have tried to explain this to you. > In any case, it looks like I won't find much sympathy on this one. You are right on this one point. I strongly suggest that you take the time to talk to some of the senior email guys. You should *not* assume that just because you don't see a use there isn't one.