Re: draft-bellis-enum-send-n-00

On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Jim Reid wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2008, at 08:05, Duane wrote:
>> If not ENUM, then where does this best fit?
>
> IMO the issue of putting numbering plan information in the DNS is
> best solved with a new DNS RR type that's designed for that specific
> purpose and probably not with a NAPTR. So that probably means writing
> up something for the dnsext 2929bis process. How that hypothetical
> new RRtype could be used in e164.arpa is something that this WG could
> pick up.
>
> However this draft is deeply flawed. There are many problems:
>
> [1] It is simply unacceptable to say this NAPTR service type MUST NOT
> be used with a wildcard.

Of course it is acceptable. Technically you could have a wildcard  
here, but it just makes no sense doesn't it? This record is at that  
position solely because it assumes a number of labels. That assumption  
only holds when its owner name is not a wildcard. Maybe a better  
wording would be "NOT RECOMMENDED".

> This violates DNS fundamentals: all RRtypes
> are the same and the same semantics apply to them wrt wildcard
> processing and the likes. [Well, let's not go down the wildcard SOA
> and NS ratholes.] In fact it's worse than that because the
> restriction on whether a wildcard can be used or not depends on a
> *subtype* of an RRtype. This is very bad.

This draft is an -00 version, and I'm sure this section is meant as an  
operations guideline, not as pure core protocol codex. It is a  
"Consideration" as the title of that specific section reveals. Like a  
sticker that warns against drying a cat in a microwave. Of course, it  
is a free world (mostly), and technically you could stick your cat in  
your microwave.

> [3] The hierarchical structuring of E.164 numbers and the DNS means
> the scheme as proposed is vulnerable to all sorts of nasties. IIUC
> introducing one of these "E2U+pstndata:send-n" at the apex of the
> tree could nuke all the others at any leaf nodes in the tree. Suppose
> someone puts "E2U+pstndata:send-n" ""!^.*$!pstndata:send-n/1-15!" at
> the zone apex. It's game over.

Again, isn't that just a silly config mistake that one should avoid?

Roy