Subject: nsec-01, bit 0

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:45:37 +0100

Hello,

Bit 0 in the first bitmap in the first window does not encode for any 
RR. Shouldn't this bit get a status of reserved in the draft? Or doesn't
it matter if it's 1 or 0.

grtz
      Miek
--
fingerprint = E1EB 29B8 8FA2 2923 62B8  0A2B 64B8 F15C 7764 AB4B
http://miek.nl/about.html

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:03:35 +0100

* Bit 0 in the first bitmap in the first window does not encode for any=20
 * RR. Shouldn't this bit get a status of reserved in the draft? Or doesn't
 * it matter if it's 1 or 0.

This is "Silly State" again :-) (that issue is closed)

See
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01851.html

--Olaf
  DNSEXT Chair

--
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: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:17:14 +0100

[On 10 Dec, @16:03, Olaf wrote in "Re: nsec-01, bit 0 ..."]
> This is "Silly State" again :-) (that issue is closed)

ah, *duh*

grtz
      Miek

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:21:03 +0100 (CET)

> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg01851.html

Nope,

Nothing to do with that.

In NXT bit 0 was reserved FFU, that future use is no more. Semantically,
it would refer to TYPE 0, which is 'an illegal type' according to 2535.

The nsec-01 needs to state something about it. (Bit 0 MUST be clear, clear
on send, ignore on receive)

Roy

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:42:19 +0100

* 
 * Nope,
 * 
(...)
 * The nsec-01 needs to state something about it. (Bit 0 MUST be clear, clear
 * on send, ignore on receive)

You are correct ("Te kort door de bocht" we say in Dutch). 

I like the suggested text.

--Olaf