On 5/1/23, 12:58 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of John Kristoff" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j...@dataplane.org> wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +0000 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this > thread. I'm not particularly satisfied with the requirement that there must be a response to meet the definition, but that seems to be the consensus even if most seem to agree it is imperfect. I won't derail. Until someone comes up with better terminology, I'm likely still going to refer to all those many cases we see in operation (usually due to a bad configuration) as a form of lame delegation when a delegation is effectively broken. :-) When there is a timeout situation, there can be no conclusion about the remote end's status. It could be that the remote end is properly set up to answer for a zone, but queries to the server are dropped on the way there. Or responses dropped on the way back. Or that the timeout is simple too quick. The timeout may have nothing at all to do with the remote end. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop