IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Mon, 26 October 2015 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD261B49E0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 yDf_TgTx9iAe for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90C31B2FDD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A3C1FCAD9; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:32:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 81CA6216C1C; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:32:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:32:19 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <20151026153219.GA60033@isc.org>
References: <20150310.191541.52184726.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <5753B8EC-60EC-44F3-872E-94766558EE50@redbarn.org> <20151025104914.GA23386@sources.org> <4681433.xxzpcmHjWT@sume.local> <562DED9E.40305@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <562DED9E.40305@bellis.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KbxuQJdpCSvyy8vZIeDbFwPwZFY>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:32:25 -0000

> > i believe that in dnssec, an empty non-terminal has a proof that the 
> > name exists, and a proof that there are no RR's. thus, vastly 
> > different from the signaling for NXDOMAIN.
> 
> RFC 4035 §3.1.3.2 appears to say differently :(

But RFC 5155 is clear on the subject; empty non-terminal nodes are
mentioned under "no data" rather than "name error".

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email