Klaus Darilion writes: > At least I referred to one working group item, but the problem is it > will take at least one year for ie164.arpa to come. Should we wait till > next year before doing infrastructure ENUM?
i don't know about that but usually in ietf if a draft has working group support, it will become a working group draft and its name starts draft-ietf instead of draft-author. none of the drafts you referred were draft-ietf. waiting for registration of ie164.arpa would not be a reason for a draft not becoming a working group draft. on the contrary, i would think that ie164.arpa registration would REQUIRE a working group draft where it is proposed. > I know you do not like to add features which are not useful for > everybody - but I hope that infrastructure ENUM will be useful for > others too and they will start sooner as the ie164.arpa becomes > available. i have nothing against infra enum. i just don't want release version of enum module to be a test bed for ideas. ser had experimental modules. i would suggest that you include infra enum implementation in such a module until dust settles. what comes to support for new standard DNS RR types, those could very well be included in openser core. > I know things would be much easier if it would be a standalone module, > but it really does not make much sense to copy 99% of the enum module > int a new ienum module. Further it requires changes to the core > (resolve.c) to support TXT records and the EBL record. This is why > integration with openser would be nice. see above: copy enum module until you get a working group draft to refer to and include the new standard RRs into core. -- juha _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
