nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either


From: Robert Drake <rdrake () direcpath com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:02:07 -0400


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.


Current thread: