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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 26 September 2016 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 0B9E012B0A6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 01:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8XmFRIhM1PMm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C139812B00A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 01:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=61154 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1boRK0-00085q-FD (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:31:32 +0100
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20160925081422.GA6645@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <3bc6c5c9-6cfc-9456-2658-580186cc8bfb@pletterpet.nl>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <d1195f72-f9a0-bf6f-06e0-0706c149228d@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:31:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3bc6c5c9-6cfc-9456-2658-580186cc8bfb@pletterpet.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/o4L56q6G35KctSj09px522f7azI>
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:31:37 -0000


On 26/09/2016 08:49, Matthijs Mekking wrote:

>> My gut feeling is that RFC 4035 is wrong. But I prefer to ask first:
>> how do you read it?
> 
> I think you are right that 4035 is wrong. I think it meant to say
> something like:
> 
>   Name Error: The node <SNAME, SCLASS> does not exist in the zone either
> exactly or via wildcard name expansion.
> 
> where existence is defined in the at time not yet existing RFC 4592
> Section 2.2.3.

This came up before.  See
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg15809.html>

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.

Ray