|
We haven’t found anything we can’t
do with a NAPTR, with parameters. Could someone cite an example of
what you can’t do with a NAPTR? Brian From:
drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Guyton,
Deborah A The protocol design team has been working on a data model
and protocol for the registry provisioning interface. We have associated with each public identifier routing
information in the form of resolution answers on the name server.
Initially we looked at specific types of routing info – such as NS and NAPTR
Resource Records. We have heard feedback that this is too DNS-centric. We are
discussing collapsing these into a “generic” Route Object. This may lead to a
long set of attributes, one would be route type, but many others would be
optional and may only apply to a given route type. We would appreciate some feedback –does it make sense to
collapse into a generic Route Object? Other suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Please reply to the list. |
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.