[Devel] [ openser-Patches-1344272 ] Carrier ENUM support according to draft-haberler-carrier-enu

[Juha Heinanen]

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