Wessels, Duane wrote on 2023-04-10 06:39:
I think Paul’s definition is good and matches the way I think of a lame
delegation.
My one quibble would be with the ending part that says “that zone is said to
have…” This is somewhat confusing because the definition combines both a
parent-child delegation and an apex/self delegation. If we’re talking about a
name server in the delegation from com to example.com, I’m not sure it is
correct to say that the example.com zone has the lame delegation.
Perhaps:
“A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative servers
designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset answers
non-authoritatively for a zone”.
i accept this as a friendly amendment.
On Apr 9, 2023, at 12:31 AM, paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
"If one or more authoritative servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by
the apex NS rrset answers non-authoritatively for a zone, that zone is said to have a
lame delegation."
p vixie
On Apr 9, 2023 04:13, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
I have been on vacation this week and am just seeing this thread now. Now that
a bunch of people have spoken up on the topic, if someone wants to propose a
*specific* change to the definition in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, this would
be a very good time to do it, given that we are after WG Last Call but waiting
for AD writeup. Otherwise, the current wording will be used for IETF Last Call.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
