Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

Hi Jay,

thanks for the summary. Alas, there are some details I disagree with.

> 2.  The views of some people that overlapped dialling should not be used 
> cannot be tackled by this draft.  It exists, it is used and that is that. 

Well, yes, but the question remains whether this issue is to be solved within
I-ENUM or before I-ENUM-Queries are generated or whether this is an issue
at all.

> 3.  According to all the DNS experts the treatment of wildcards is not an 
> issue.

I'd rephrase that to say that I'd see no protocol issues (... "breaks" ...),
but there might remain operational challenges.  However, this is closely
related to (c) below.

> 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)?

Likely out of scope for this WG.

> 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?

Where this includes the question what that trade-off actually is.  Also,
this isn't just about "extra records", it is also about cluttering the tree.

-Peter