Talk:NAPTR record

Information
I think the NAPTR Record is Support in Windows 2003 Server. So i found a Vulnerability Warning for this Server Version. You can found this here: http://watchguardsecuritycenter.com/2011/08/10/microsoft-dns-server-naptr-code-execution-vulnerability/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.79.40.14 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Expert attention / rewrite request
I have some experience with and understanding of the basic DNS record types - A, MX, CNAME, etc - but after reading this article, I still don't know much about NAPTR. What is its purpose, really? How widely it is used today? Is its use spreading or is it becoming obsolete? Should I use it? Instead, this article just has a frustrating "DNS for dummies" introduction, something about telephone numbers on the internet (wtf?) and then delves right into unnecessary technical details and painfully long examples. It even includes a primer on regular expressions.

Therefore, I suggest that if you know these things about NAPTR, please nuke most of this article's contents and write something that's useful to the rest of us :-) And please, stay on topic...

--82.130.38.44 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that if "telephone numbers on the internet" evokes a "wtf" response from you, it might be a little early for you to be figuring out NAPTR. The article isn't very clear (and I had nothing to do with writing it) but most of the main points are there. Telephony on the internet, aka VoIP, is quite common and NAPTR is a widely used protocol to provide a DNS-like service for VoIP. Altaphon (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment for the original requester of expert attention or rewrite: the expert obviously already attended this in first place, and there is no need for re-write. Actually, I got just what I was lookuing for. Seikku Kaita (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Should convert this to a קצרמר
Too short, insufficient information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.228.195 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes and no: I agree this is a stub, but it serves well, I got what I wanted without reading through the RFC. If you wish to go for details, the RFCs are out there, why should they be re-written into Wikipedia? BTW, the name of the class should be tyngät ;-) Seikku Kaita (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

NAPTR rewrites
The article states:

"Several NAPTR records can be chained together creating fairly sophisticated URI rewriting rules. A record can go through any number of rewrites before reaching a terminal condition."

RFC 3403 states:

"The regular expressions MUST NOT be used in a cumulative fashion, that is, they should only be applied to the original string held by the client, never to the domain name produced by a previous NAPTR rewrite."

It is my understanding that the RFC 3403 explicitly forbids the kind of functionality that the article says is possible. I will change this soon if there are no objections.


 * A response:

The reference for your point should be RFC3402, section 2, which is what RFC3403 refers to. The relevant text is "An Application MUST NOT apply a Rule to the output of a previous Rule. All Rewrite Rules for all Applications must ALWAYS apply to the exact same Application Unique String that the algorithm started with."

So, to be clear, chained rewriting is allowed, but not if the output of one rule is used as the input of the next.

JayDaley 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a "SIP URN"?
The text speaks of SIP URN which IMHO should be SIP URI. If it were a URN, it would start with "urn:" and this is not what is meant.

Rick van Rein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:0:0:0:99 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)