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

[email protected] wrote:

> For reasons already outlined it would still need to be a DDDS NAPTR, and 
> therefore it would still need to use the regexp rewrite fiel.   I'm not 
> convinced that it would make sense to radically alter the currently 
> proposed Send-N URI format, particularly if Send-N is just one of a set of 
> future meta-data types.

I'm pretty sure it was you that made the comment about the DNS software
you're using is custom written, it would be almost silly to pre-populate
a database with all the possible combinations when most are the same etc.

Someone else, maybe it was you mentioned this was meta information, your
reasoning for keeping this in NAPTR space is to reduce lookups, fair
enough, so still do it under a new RR type, and return this in the
additional section along with NAPTR records in the answer section.

If you aren't going to pre-populate a DNS database (like BIND) then
where is the issue with sticking it under some other RR type?

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane