On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:50:54PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> Should the second condition on the RR type have an explicit "besides
> NSEC3" qualifier? Or am I missing something that implicitly excludes RR
> type NSEC3? Otherwise it seems to me that the second condition is always
> false.
Yes,
Hi,
RFC 5155 says this:
7.2.8. Responding to Queries for NSEC3 Owner Names
The owner names of NSEC3 RRs are not represented in the NSEC3 RR
chain like other owner names. As a result, each NSEC3 owner name is
covered by another NSEC3 RR, effectively negating the existence of
the NSE
