NAPTR Record compatibility with ETSI TS 123 003#811
Merged
edmondas merged 1 commit intopoweradmin:masterfrom Oct 19, 2025
Merged
NAPTR Record compatibility with ETSI TS 123 003#811edmondas merged 1 commit intopoweradmin:masterfrom
edmondas merged 1 commit intopoweradmin:masterfrom
Conversation
edmondas
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2025
edmondas
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi!
It seems like the current validation of NAPTR records is a little too strict.
Below change makes the validation compatible with the ETSI TS 123 003 spec.
See page 88 and 93 of this PDF for more information:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123000_123099/123003/18.07.00_60/ts_123003v180700p.pdf
In here, empty regexp with non-empty replacement is specified. Also hyphens, colons and plus signs are used in the service field.
Thanks!