Re: Send-N draft: draft-bellis-enum-send-n-02 published

On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:12 AM, Duane wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> 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]!" .
>>
>> Sorry, I still don't see your point.
>>
>> Yes, those NAPTRs would hide any wildcard Send-N record higher up  
>> in the
>> tree.  Per previous e-mail, "so what?".
>
> No those records are wild cards,

No they are not.

In DNS, the concept of Wildcard Domain Names only exist in the  
authoritative server. Since you quoted a response message, these  
records may be the result of wildcard domain name processing on the  
server, but are certainly not "wild cards" nor wildcard domain name.

> the hostnames appear in full because
> that's how DNS returns them based on the query and any send-n's more
> specific would hide those wild cards not the other way round.

Please re-read what Ray said: "those NAPTRs would hide any wildcard  
send-N record higher up".

Given that Ray could not have known that you actually used an expanded  
wildcard domain name, but assumed
that these are regular, unexpanded Resource Records, he asserted that  
you would have a wildcard domain name at an ancestor name.

> It's obvious you and Clive have both failed to grasp why wild cards
> would break,

This is silly. This doesn't "break" wildcards. This is EXACTLY how  
wildcard domain name processing should behave, i.e. an existent name  
has precedence over a wildcard domain name at an ancestor domain.

> so it's more than obvious that those in charge of this
> decision making process in my opinion do not have the necessary
> technical skills to be making this kind of decision,

This assertion is too ad hominem. Please be polite.

> so you've come up
> with a half baked idea that just happens to kind of sort of work and  
> are
> trying to get it ratified for who knows what reason if it's going to  
> be
> for private use only.

See my previous remark.

Roy