Subject: Re: comments on nsec3-01

From: [email-masked] (Ted Lindgreen)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:29:17 +0100

[Quoting Ben Laurie, on Mar  2, 18:25, in "Re: comments on nsec ..."]
> Ted Lindgreen wrote:
> > [Quoting Ben Laurie, on Mar  2, 16:18, in "Re: comments on nsec ..."]
> > 
> > 
> >>>One of the many questions I have is what should be the default
> >>>behavior in case you do not understand the new hash algorithm. Should
> >>>you treat the answer as non secure?
> >>
> >>The answer is non secure, so it would be slightly insane to treat it any 
> >>other way.
> > 
> > 
> > Shouldn't you be treating it as bogus? (Because it was meant to
> > be secured, but you can't verify it).
> 
> But it isn't bogus, your validator is :-)

No, the protocol (or this particular extention of it) is, I'm affraid.

-- ted

--
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/>