Roy Badami wrote:
> Ben> I believe that since NSEC3 also shows the record at the
> Ben> closest encloser, the same check works.
> But what about names between the query name and the closest encloser?

They don't exist.

> Don't you need to not only prove that a wildcard doesn't exist at each
> of those names,

No, because if a wildcard existed at one of them, then that name would
exist, and so the closest encloser would be that name instead.

> but also that a delegation doesn't exist at each of
> those names? The same NSEC3 record won't generally cover the wildcard
> and the NS record.

I claim it will.

to unsubscribe send a message to with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.