On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote: > > Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad > > configuration?
> The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is > great. I say this to caution against tying the "why it is" with > "what it is." This is a good point. I confess my perspective is that of the DNS admin/serving side focussed on "why it is" whereas lameness is most often observed as a "what it is" from the resolution/client-side perspective. To use your useful terms. I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree precisely on what "lame" means, what is the call to action when a zone or its name servers are declared lame? And how is that different from any other form of miscreant auth behaviour such as inconsistency? I mean if "lame" is a precious historical term that warrants considered clarification, surely it has a very specific value that we can all act on, right? So what is that very specific value? Mark. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
