Subject: [Enum] AW: NAPTRs for invalid Numbers

From: "Stastny Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:58:26 +0100

Hi -MM

		When Jon and I were talking about this before last week I suggested at
		one point a new enumservice called 'notavalidnumber' which could
		designate non-valid but existing nodes so that clients would have a
		better ability to detect real errors. The reason we rejected it was that
		it would bring up all sorts of issues associated with what those
		intermediate nodes meant, how else could you use them, etc. And that
		would cause this document to never get published.
		
		So my suggestion is to make a simple statement of it being out of scope
		with a statement similar to what I say above. We publish this document
		and then those that care can go off and figure out what records at
		intermediate nodes means more concretely....
		
		I'm just not comfortable with holding this document up while we
		investigate what this approach might mean, both from a protocol stand
		point and from a regulatory/admin standpoint....

I fully agree that our first priority is to get the document out. The issue with
the -notavalidnumber- should not be handled now in the document, if ever.
 
I yust wanted to make clear that there are some issues, but this may be
more suited in an informational draft for later after some experiences in the
trial. I just wanted your comments or ideas.
 
regards
Richard

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum