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"). Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
