Re: Send-N draft: draft-bellis-enum-send-n-02 published
Duane <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] wrote: > Duane wrote: >> It gets 'broken' because send-n will interfere with wild card records >> because in most case the most specific record should take preference. > > I still don't understand your objection. > > If a specific record over-rides a wildcard containing a Send-N record, so > what?! > > That just means that the switch implementing Send-N will keep on asking > for digits (one at a time) until the full number is found[*] > > Can you provide an actual example zone showing how this doesn't work? ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.0.0.8.4.4.e164.org. IN NAPTR ;; ANSWER SECTION: 9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.0.0.8.4.4.e164.org. 60 IN NAPTR 200 10 "u" "E2U+SIP" "!^\\+44800(.*)$!sip:44800\\[email protected]!" . 9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.0.0.8.4.4.e164.org. 60 IN NAPTR 200 10 "u" "E2U+SIP" "!^\\+44800(.*)$!sip:44800\\[email protected]!" . 9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1.0.0.8.4.4.e164.org. 60 IN NAPTR 200 10 "u" "E2U+SIP" "!^\\+44800(.*)$!sip:44800\\[email protected]!" . As per my last email you are also breaking ENUM RFCs, not just DNS ones. -- Best regards, Duane