Re: [DNSOP] What is the purpose of NSEC3 "closest encloser" proofs?

[Shumon Huque <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:59 PM Shumon Huque <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:46 PM Nick Johnson <nick=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I'm reading RFC 5155, and I'm a bit puzzled by the requirement for
>> "closest encloser" proofs to prove nonexistence of a domain. Given that the
>> RFC requires generating NSEC3 records on empty non-terminals, isn't it
>> sufficient to examine a single NSEC3 record to prove nonexistence?
>>
>> For example, if I want to prove the nonexistence of a.b.c.example, isn't
>> it sufficient to validate an NSEC3 record that covers that name and is one
>> level higher (eg, somehash.b.c.example)? Why do I need to prove the
>> closest-encloser with a second NSEC3 record?
>>
>> -Nick Johnson
>>
>
> The closest encloser proof actually *is* what proves that the name doesn't
> exist. But the other reason is that for NXDOMAIN proofs, you also need to
> prove that the name could not have been synthesized by a wildcard. The
> hypothetical wildcard that might have synthesized a response for the name
> is constructed by prepending the asterisk label to the closest encloser.
>

> Let's use your example and say 'a.b.c.example' doesn't exist in the zone
> example.
>
> Let's also say the longest ancestor of this name that actually does exist
> in the zone is 'c.example' (which could be an empty non-terminal or not --
> either way, it will have an NSEC3 record matching the hash of the name).
>

One small correction to my sentence above: strike the phrase about empty
non-terminals - the closest encloser can't be an ENT of course (otherwise
it wouldn't exist either!).

Shumon.

The NXDOMAIN proof consists of:
>
> ### Closest Encloser proof:
> * the NSEC3 RR that matches the closest encloser name 'c.example'
> * the NSEC3 RR that covers the next closer name 'b.c.example'
>
> This proves that b.c.example does not exist. This automatically means that
> all names under it, including a.b.c.example, do not exist.
>
> ### Wildcard non existence proof:
> * the NSEC3 RR that covers the wildcard at the closest encloser, namely
> '*.c.example'.
>
> Shumon Huque
>
>