[asterisk-dev] ENUM changes: discussion

[Otmar Lendl]

[I've missed that thread in february, thus the late response.]

On 2006/02/15 22:02, John Todd <jtodd at loligo.com> wrote:
> >John Todd wrote:
> >
> >> I was rather hoping to have enum.conf become depreciated, and this
> >> change seems to go backwards a few steps and solidify it's rather
> >> confusing position in the config file directory.
> >
> >If it's true that enum.conf is no longer useful, then we'll just get rid
> >of the old stuff. Same goes for TXTCIDNAME, if it is no longer needed.
> 
> I think that after looking at the other replies to this thread that 
> the enum.conf file can go away.  I haven't heard anyone present 
> anything that would require the ongoing existence of this file.

...

> PS: Those of you who have an interest in this thread should please 
> take a look at http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=5526 - this is a 
> patch that seems to be ready to go that extends the ENUMLOOKUP 
> function a bit with the carrier extensions.  More testers?

As the author of that patch, some notes:

* I'm updating it as there has been some progress in the IETF and
  I'll add the new features ASAP.

* My patch introduces two meaningful configuration parameters
  to be set in enum.conf. I found it pretty helpful to have that file.

* Meanwhile, someone broke the ENUM code:
  http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/trunk/funcs/func_enum.c?r1=9469&r2=9674

  This patch changes the syntax of the ENUMLOOKUP funktion from

  ENUMLOOKUP(number[,Method-type[,options|record#[,zone-suffix]]])
  to
  ENUMLOOKUP(number[|Method-type[|options[|record#[|zone-suffix]]]])

  [splitting the options and the record# parameter.]

  The record# was ignored in the subsequent code.

  I'm not sure whether that change was simply the result of 
  the unclear synopsis of the older version.

/ol
-- 
< Otmar Lendl (lendl at nic.at) | nic.at Systems Engineer >