Subject: Q20: expanding wildcards in the authority section

From: Daniel Massey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:57:20 -0500

Hi,

When placing an NSEC RR in the authority section, should the wildcard 
be expanded?

For example, see the NO DATA reply in section B.7 of the protocol 
draft.  (rough version below)
;; Question   a.z.w.example. IN AAAA
;; Answer (empty)
;; Authority
    example.       3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.ns1.example. ( snip )
    example.       3600 RRSIG  SOA 1 1 3600 20031108232541 ( snip )
    x.y.w.example. 3600 NSEC   xx.example. MX RRSIG NSEC (snip)
    x.y.w.example. 3600 RRSIG  NSEC 1 4 3600 20031108232541 (snip)
    *.w.example.   3600 NSEC   x.w.example. MX RRSIG NSEC (snip)
    *.w.example.   3600 RRSIG  NSEC 1 2 3600 20031108232541 (snip)
;; Additional (empty)

Note the last two entries in the authority section are "*.w.example."  
Is this unexpanded wildcard correct or should the wildcard have been 
expanded to "a.z.w.example" instead?

This question is (hopefully) just a sanity check that the current 
protocol text (wildcard is not expanded) is correct and does not 
reflect any change from past documents, but a clear answer from past 
documents is elusive so the issue is posted here as question 20.

Dan

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:16:27 +0100

Q20: Expansion of wild cards in the authority section.

      Default action, based on sense of the room at IETF58, is to not
      expand the owner names of e.g. wildcard  NSEC RRs.
     
      If there is no further prohibitive objections by December 8 this 
      will be taken as consensus of the working group.

-- Olaf
   DNSEXT co-cair

---------------------------------| Olaf M. Kolkman
---------------------------------| RIPE NCC