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

Roy Arends wrote:

> 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.

You say potato I say well who cares, the point is he was welcome to try
the query for himself, the \\1 (dig adds the extra slash) and the .* in
the NAPTR record should have tipped him off to the fact it was a wild card.

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

If I do the same query for +44800\d{1,10} and the results would be the
same, yet if a send-n appears at a more specific location the result
wouldn't be the same.

> 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.

Again, he was free to re-do the query himself if he did not understand
what I was expressing, this isn't supposed to be rocket science but
there is clearly a fundamental lack of understanding here as to the
effect of send-n by its proponents.

> 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.

*sigh* You guys can keep pushing this all you want but you so far
haven't shown why this shoul be accepted it has the potential to
substantially increase load on DNS and cause looping all of which would
need to be dealt with as special cases and even if it was passed as a
NAPTR type the DNS guys would most certainly have a beef with all the
additional queries.

As I said before this seems to be more like a routing protocol,
something in the domain of BGP where everyone has a complete view of the
dial plan and updates are broadcast as they happen.

>> 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.

I've tried to be, but that doesn't seem to be working, so I thought a
slightly more strongly worded email might have more of an impact, I
guess I was being naive in assuming what I was expressing was being
understood.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane