Re: [dnsext] Problem with draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19

On 8 October 2012 16:04, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <CABrd9SR1_m-8WEcCiu9v5SjT-vrrsZYA14SXq76eGUED=8-zKA@mail.gmail.com>
> , Ben Laurie writes:
>> On 8 October 2012 14:48, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > In message <CABrd9STyyyALzF00p_dgB-pr_+9wfApjJA+v=Ru1QGjd8fgxNg@mail.gmail.
>> com>
>> > , Ben Laurie writes:
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19#section
>> -5.
>> >> 1
>> >> says
>> >>
>> >> "When canonicalizing DNS names (for both ordering and signing), DNS
>> >>    names in the RDATA section of NSEC resource records are not
>> >>    downcased.  DNS names in the RDATA section of RRSIG resource records
>> >>    are downcased."
>> >>
>> >> This appears to be true, but it caused us some confusion: DNS names in
>> >> NSEC _are_ still downcased for ordering purposes, and need to be or
>> >> there's not much point in NSEC.
>> >
>> > Given that NSEC records are singletons there is nothing to order.
>>
>> The owner and the next owner are ordered...
>
> But ordering of RDATA is to sort records in the RRset.

I agree that you can pedant away the need for any statement, I am just
suggesting that it would be nice to avoid any doubt or confusion by
saying something about it. It certainly confused me when I first read
it.

>
>> >
>> >> It'd be nice you have a clarifying comment in 5.1...
>> >>
>> >> BTW, at some point I appear to have fallen off this list, but not sure why
>> ...
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> dnsext mailing list
>> >> dnsext@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>> > --
>> > Mark Andrews, ISC
>> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org