Subject: [Enum] Tickets - NTNs is too broad

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:13:40 -0600

Hi Patrik, Richard, folks,
  I was going to slam in several tickets on NTNs and their  
clarification,
but Richard beat me too it with a single ticket for all clarifications.
IMHO there are a set of different issues to do with NTNs - they go all
through the Experiences document.

Initial items - note that IMHO, points (v) and particularly (vi) are
quite complex, and I'm unsure whether adding this functionality would
mean a re-cycle rather than moving to draft standard.

(i)   ORDER and PRIORITY is significant only within the current domain
(ii)  On detecting a loop (or an unacceptably long chain of NTN  
references),
       the client should "back out" and continue processing with any
       other NAPTRs in the referring zone.
       [i.e. it should not simply abort the whole ENUM query]
(iii) the absence of a flag indicates a Non-Terminal NAPTR.
       In this case, the services field is also empty, as is the REGEXP
       field, with the replacement field holding the target FQDN (Fully
       Qualified Domain Name).
(iv)  Clarify that the Enumservice registration process is appropriate
       only where the flags field contains the 'u' flag.

(v)   Consider creating a new non-terminal flag, with a new separate
       Registration process for non-terminal-enumservices.

(vi)  Consider creating a new non-terminal flag that uses teh REGEXP
       field to generate a target FQDN, and how that target FQDN is
       generated from the REGEXP

Given that there's a ticket already, can I just push these into the  
system?

all the best,
   Lawrence

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:56:00 -0600

> Given that there's a ticket already, can I just push these into the  

One issue per ticket.

    paf

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:14:05 -0600

Hi Patrik, folks,
   I can't decode the answer...
I guess that this is a yes, and apologies if it was a no.
Incoming!
all the best,
   Lawrence

On 21 Mar 2006, at 16:56, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> Given that there's a ticket already, can I just push these into  
>> the system?
> One issue per ticket.
>
>    paf