Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"

"John Levine" <> Thu, 22 September 2016 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F9912B696 for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNYJ_BKG2oTF for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8335712B623 for <>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 46072 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2016 15:05:14 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 22 Sep 2016 15:05:14 -0000
Date: 22 Sep 2016 15:04:53 -0000
Message-ID: <20160922150453.93721.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:05:20 -0000

>Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone 
>feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with 
>your reasons.

I think it's ready to publish with one small caveat.  In section 5.1,
the text in the box says "resolvers MAY use NSEC/NSEC3 resource
records" and the text in the next paragraph says "the resolver SHOULD
use NSEC/NSEC3/wildcard records".  There's a similar MAY in the box in
section 7.

The authors SHOULD make up their minds.  Assuming they really believe
this is a good idea, change the MAY's to SHOULD.