On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (d) It seems to me that the cases this proposal addresses are
> special enough that a dedicated Extended Status Code would be in
> order. Instead, the document specifies the highly generic 5.1.2
> (even those the RFC 3463 definition of X.
In message <53c8394a.6080...@dcrocker.net>, Dave Crocker writes:
> > Specifically referring to Section 3 of
> > draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05, there is not such thing as a "NULL
> > MX Resource Record". There is only an MX Resource Record that
> > this specification proposes to use with a conventi
--On Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:03 -0700 The IESG
wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area
> Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
> - 'A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail'
>as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to
