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

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Mon, 26 October 2015 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
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 36C491B2F72 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 BXc_qb6Lca6z for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22b.google.com (mail-qk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A061B47B5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkcy65 with SMTP id y65so110925122qkc.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2pxDrgO1DNHrJywI810LHqR0Y2/KO51t3V37HExdKhI=; b=huxEyMy+9v4JqikqUlQIuDL9I9nXFLERc8LZf6bS5cydeFxQO4CbxWC+II4n907JSp NFDZM20Yo4rNiDhzJtxu4U6CdXxJ47U0nofpX7g5cm8ti1UFYR+r4LoL3Yp0Xq4rKi1S 6ckzZ4xqeahPgNWxLR4qAD3BGbRRN9PiY4qit6n9jFhR4Tooc2ipRooD1Ne/13LE0YyY fVfPDxxHZwjsfnWOVLdNkutFR1AKAB+FWzYy3xhS/qrKPzBmwLnqS1HHsPhhMb3F9WeG CcBhocJBHbIpWhOGaZh9EVxQBPgByybUYO+6xtVDuTZU4dOmTmu4gPudglMHIUVaI8bL uLug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.212.219 with SMTP id s88mr44062147qks.70.1445876341561; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.80.170 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <562E4DCE.6030407@bellis.me.uk>
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> <20151026153219.GA60033@isc.org> <562E4DCE.6030407@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:19:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdXuScHTGE_bbE092Mv71Q_dOqx-L6ybXaUb84VZpFZysQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11479872ba6ec20523045159"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/o4dehPSietAQk2adPQSyMnnNIoQ>
Cc: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <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 16:19:04 -0000

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 26/10/2015 15:32, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> > But RFC 5155 is clear on the subject; empty non-terminal nodes are
> > mentioned under "no data" rather than "name error".
>
> Ah, thanks, that's useful to know, and further it specifically says that
> the NSEC3 ETN response is different to an NSEC ETN response.
>
> I still thinks that RFC 4035 merits an errata, with perhaps all that's
> required is for the "Name Error" title to be expanded to say "Name Error
> Response or Empty Non-Terminal Response" (thus avoiding any implication
> that an ETN Response is a subset of a "Name Error Response").
>

I agree with Ray. An errata should be filed.

Shumon.