IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dnsext] An 5155 inconvenience

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl> Fri, 20 January 2012 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562B221F84FA; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:17:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1327069031; bh=KbRiJbsUGkMF5WE8OKOEtTrZOeP8t4yk6lF7qGtlmt0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=X2nrd5Rhse7U0wpyc3MVJz9UPATa95rHHWe3Cq/3Vw9pKCa5HLIvelMVucEMvWkt4 3NhBMpKUkMDQNAsOSwSqO8AobjL4nHWE86jl0aCEojaOO+2pr+CwffuTCFElwERVj5 Y8f6LvcK8IftC/L8OZ4IkfsyZi8B7t/rVeGYsxtw=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73B021F84E0 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:17:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdbvu3WLJCDN for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2001:7b8:206:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D62121F84FA for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.27] (a83-160-139-153.adsl.xs4all.nl [83.160.139.153]) (authenticated bits=0) by open.nlnetlabs.nl (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0KEH4cX091555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:17:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1327069027; bh=cG9+5JlbW8+5KDkUx57AlD4EWETczLMVNO9srCkrGN4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=CONo5VxyKxfhls+FBuy6o1JRBvffADjmmwjbLfL4CqjhK0Ex5oATG5QH4Q8vXTFAF qBFp47SY3IN0fSwXWRbcsQO0wECWgCKVSO8LKT7hMoOu1NMupWC+iscwCLP65clYWn mT3xhvJcdu5uccZoua3IdCwdwiN/4ywNv4VXSaBo=
Message-ID: <4F197760.5030809@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:17:04 +0100
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext list <dnsext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (open.nlnetlabs.nl [213.154.224.1]); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:17:05 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [dnsext] An 5155 inconvenience
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Section 8.2 of RFC 5155 states that a validator MUST ignore NSEC3 RRs
with a Flag fields value other than zero or one. But in the IANA
Considerations section, bits 0-6 are available for assignment.

Could it be that Section 8.2 actually says that a validator MUST ignore
bit 0-6 of the NSEC3 Flags field? Do you think this clarification is
suitable for an errata or as text in dnssec-bis-updates?

Best regards,
  Matthijs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPGXdgAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5BnQH/0AyeXy2MCilAfb3ZUM7JPZZ
Ya6dYiWnyJo9xN9Y+iCDeKwmgkETT0xOfYyNoHgrN/7fmYsU/F0AERycfaqKkXhD
xXoru5/D2t+YjdlpjsYN7CAIGkkwOcniXp4/vdA+m62fFCiC3Qavcml5P8+mKSoJ
BQkDt9jU0o7Bm+MUu5AL2pzslxeROdODcOjhc/Qy9zg1lLvxCwZCpHwV0GfphFd3
wcpstycYV7b8UYpWs36CqLgEy3lMKdNVElK7hLUmY03/n5tZ5kOxoGWxhN/Hm9TB
tdQqzOn7hVS8BEn5tkrmdpLskjV4cq9VCAtmhYAWJscGIPhWiyH/iRcjIINqnu0=
=ZXhb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email