Re: Send-n, rat holes and 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?

Yes, if NAPTRs are used for Send-N then they should not be used in 
non-terminal NAPTRs.

That's currently implicit in the draft (as indeed it appears to be in 
Richard's CNAM draft) because the only valid form for a Send-N is as 
described in the regexp field.  I'll make it more explicit.

Ray