Subject: draft-ietf-dnsext-bis-updates-0: DNAME

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:43:55 +0200 (CEST)

Please note that section 6 "clarification on Non-Existence Proofs" does
not handle DNAME.

i.e.

b.example DNAME other
b.example NSEC c.example DNAME NSEC RRSIG

It is trivial to construct a negative response for qname=a.b.example using
the "b.example NSEC c.example" which is (falsely) used to prove
non-existence of a.b.example. Therefor, the algorithm must have a clause
where it checks for DNAME.

Regards,

Roy

--
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: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:10:33 -0400 (EDT)

> Please note that section 6 "clarification on Non-Existence Proofs" does

To answer's Ed's question from April 15th: "I hate the DNAME".

I'll add this to the bis-updates doc.  Good catch.

-- Sam