As a Chair, I'm actually very happy were' having deeper discussions
around this draft. I think there is some good work inside here, and it
appears that the WG feels the same.
tim
On 10/26/15 11:59 AM, Ray Bellis 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").
Ray
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
