Subject: RE: [Enum] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-enum-void-00.txt

From: "Klaus Darilion" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:41:39 -0400

Hi!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) [mailto:lwc at roke.co.uk] 
> Hi Klaus, folks,
>    Strictly, this example is invalid, as the priorities and 
> ORDER field values are the same.
> In this situation, it is a client's choice whether they 
> reject the NAPTRs or just choose a random order/priority for them.

Sorry for my ignorance, but where is it defined that NAPTRs with the
same order and priority field are invalid? Although the example in RFC
3403 on Page 8 has same order/priority.

regards,
klaus

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:20 -0400

Hi Klaus,
First rule of the RFC - never ever trust examples. Ever.
Read the normative sections of the document.
Any examples MIGHT help to clarify the text, but the text wins
over the examples every time.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:57:51 -0400

On Oct 14, 2004, at 18:23, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote:
If you put NAPTRs with identical ORDER and PREFERENCE/Priority values 
in a zone,
then are these or are these not identical? From the DDDS perspective, 
they are
and the choice of which is the "real one" is indeterminate.
As the creator of the examples in the RFC, let me explain my thinking 
(that might still be weird according to the majority on this list of 
course):

The order/preference field on the NAPTR RR's set a prefered order in 
which I as the owner of the E.164 want to be contacted. This imply a 
policy is published.

The client looking up the NAPTR get this policy, but, we are not done 
yet.

The client have a policy as well that might include for example a list 
with priorities SIP, Email etc should be tried. If nothing else it can 
be based on cost (real $$).

So, the order in what the records will be used is a mix between the 
policy published by the owner of the E.164 (the order/preference in the 
NAPTR) and the policy the client have.

When I then added an example of the same order/preference in the RFC 
that was to say only "it doesn't matter in what order you try these 
records". Because the policy the owner of the records state exists is 
neutral, the policy the client have implemented will be what rules.

       paf