Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

On 2 Jul 2008, at 22:38, Jay Daley wrote:
> So that leaves us with the following real issues that are actually  
> worth
> discussing.  The first two are more about DNS:
>
> a. Whether or not we need a more general mechanism to describe the  
> shape
> of the tree rather than the something just for ENUM?  Also expressed  
> as
> whether there should be meta-data in the tree about the tree (and  
> whether
> NAPTR is a good way to do that)?
>
> b. What is the trust/security implication from one label in the tree
> making a statement about later labels in the tree even though they  
> might
> be under different administrative control?
>
>
> and the second two are specifically about send-n:
>
> c. Is the relative form of send-n worth the trouble?
>
> d. Is the trade off between extra records vs reduced lookups worth it?
>
>
> Any more real issues?


e. This is probably covered by point (b) above, but I think it needs  
explicit consideration: if a NAPTR is being used (a la send-n), what  
are the implications of non-terminals and should they be restricted?


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net