To: "Eric Norman (MACC)" <EJNORMAN@macc.wisc.edu>
Cc: perry@piermont.com, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: A suggestion for IPv6 domain literals 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 1996 15:23:00 CDT."
             <26012415230627@vms3.macc.wisc.edu> 
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:56:31 +1100
Message-Id: <8340.822527791@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Wed, 24 Jan 96 15:23 CDT
    From:        "Eric Norman (MACC)" <EJNORMAN@macc.wisc.edu>
    Message-ID:  <26012415230627@vms3.macc.wisc.edu>

    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?

No, if anything, the opposite, which is one reason I don't
want domain literals to pretend to be just another domain
name (the ip6.int approach).
    
    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.

Yes, that way works, but has two drawbacks - first, it assumes
the destination system is running when the mail needs to be
sent, which is certainly not always the case now, and will
be less, mail needs to be able to sit in a queue and be
dispatched when the path is available.  And second, for people
who need to do a lot of this (people dealing all the time with
DNS problems), manually creating mail via a telnet interface
is just a little too complex...

kre