Re: [DNSOP] ENT and NXDOMAIN: the case of RFC 4035

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 29 September 2016 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3F912B425 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rDY81cYp7_Z for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6879E12B44E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id C31C131D6A; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:28:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DCF2FEC0B75; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:24:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:24:42 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <20160929112442.GA20263@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <20160925081422.GA6645@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <3bc6c5c9-6cfc-9456-2658-580186cc8bfb@pletterpet.nl> <d1195f72-f9a0-bf6f-06e0-0706c149228d@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d1195f72-f9a0-bf6f-06e0-0706c149228d@bellis.me.uk>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/F-pd4MoBsIO2yDSMmgFM1VbZTQ4>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ENT and NXDOMAIN: the case of RFC 4035
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:28:58 -0000

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:31:32AM +0100,
 Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> Roy Arend's response was that the intent was that an ENT response
> requires the same NSEC records as an NXDOMAIN response, but not the same
> RCODE.

Sure, but the title of the section is very misleading.

I tried to write an errata to RFC 4035 but it is complicated because
it requires to find new terminology for the two cases named "No data"
and "Name error".

May be just adding in 3.1.3.2:

   This section only deals with NSEC records to return. Its title does
   not imply that the proper RCODE is
   always "Name error" (NXDOMAIN). For instance, in the case of an
   ENT, the correct RCODE is "No error".