Re: [Enum] draft-bellis-enum-send-n-00

[Duane <duane at e164.org>]

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> Firstly, the application is already going to be querying for NAPTR records,
> so this means it gets back the desired information without any more effort.
> Secondly, adding new RR types should be limited to major new issues that
> can't be met with the existing types.

As you pointed out, if you wanted a standardised approach across
countries and some have already placed wild card records in their
records for telcos, but allow end users to override the telco blocks by
providing a more specific record.

Send-n would break things for when a more specific record wasn't
available and would also prevent these countries from standardising on
your approach and would force little disconnected internet islands or
worst multiple islands interconnected and disjointed.

I'm sure both approaches are far from desirable.

> As someone else said, this is a usage guide not a technical prohibition.

Ah, but it is, you are giving people the choice of one or the other in
certain situations and expressly disallowing them from using both.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane

http://www.freeauth.org - Enterprise Two Factor Authentication
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom
http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP

"In the long run the pessimist may be proved right,
    but the optimist has a better time on the trip."
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum