[170386] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Drake)
Thu Mar 27 00:02:31 2014
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:02:07 -0400
From: Robert Drake <rdrake@direcpath.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140327032828.15628.qmail@joyce.lan>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/26/2014 11:28 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> It's messier than that. See RFC 5321 section 4.1.3. I have no idea
> whether anyone has actually implemented IPv6 address literals and if
> so, how closely they followed the somewhat peculiar spec.
>
> R's,
> John
>
I'm not sure why the SMTP RFC defines IPv6-addr so thoroughly and in an
incompatible way with the other RFCs. It would make more sense to refer
back to another RFC with authoritative definitions. They're completely
missing the fun that's happening with Zone Identifiers in RFC6874 and
the hacks to support them some have been doing with the IPvFuture
definition.
I'm not saying John Klensin shouldn't have a say in how the IPv6 address
is defined, but I do think it would be best for everyone to work it out
in an official place somewhere so that email software isn't doing the
complete opposite of everyone else.
