Subject: another nsec2 example

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:14:17 -0700

After the previous example, I thought a bit more about the EXIST RR. 
Here is an example that shows the need for it (in the NSEC2 proposal).

I'll use the same beginning data as the other message I sent, but 
with a different query.

So, starting with:
@       SOA, other stuff
*.f     some stuff
d.e.f   some stuff
z.e.f   some stuff
17      NSEC2
98      NSEC2
138     NSEC2
347     NSEC2

This time I'll query for (one.two.three.e.f.@, IN, AAAA).  In this 
case, the closest encloser is the empty non-terminal e.f.@.  (What 
was I thinking last time?)

In this case, the following has to be determined:

1) That one.two.three.e.f does not exist
2) That two.three.e.f does not exist
3) That three.e.f does not exist
4) That e.f does exist
5) That *.e.f does not exist

The only difference from the previous example is that the proof that 
e.f exists has to prove the existence of the empty node there.  The 
proposal postulates that the EXIST name is needed there.

Faced with that, there is another choice - why not just insert 
NSEC2's at all existing nodes (as shown in the tree)?  We forbade 
empty non-terminals owning NXT's in the past just to cut down the 
need to represent them.  This is merely a suggestive question - 
predicated by the potential need for EXIST RR.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

Even the voices inside my head are refusing to talk to me anymore.

--
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/>