At Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:23:46 +1100, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
> There is nothing strange here beyond a missing delegation. I'm not opposed to this conclusion itself, but: > > If so, I agree it looks odd, and we might say it's against Section > > 2.2.1.2 of RFC3658 (if we superficially applied this section the answer > > would be NOERROR-NODATA with the SOA of www.example.com). > > No. The algorithm stops at step 1. Example.com "holds" the DS > if it existed. > > 1) If the nameserver is authoritative for the zone that holds the DS > RR set (i.e., the zone that delegates <QNAME>, a.k.a. the "parent" > zone), the response contains the DS RR set as an authoritative > answer. But in this case the zone that would otherwise be the parent (= example.com) does not delegate <QNAME> because there's no NS, so I thought step 1 didn't apply. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
