On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> 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.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
