Dear WG,
The extended WGLC for rfc8499-bis did not conclude with rough consensus
on either of the two proposed definitions of the term "lame delegation".
There was some consensus in a subthread on one of the proposed
definitions, earlier formulated on the mailing list, see the original
thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4E1AQKGivEHtJDB85gSNhofRuyM/.
For readability, I will include the proposed definition again:
"A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
servers designated by the delegating NS RRset or by the child's apex NS
RRset answers non-authoritatively for a zone".
In another subthread, new terms and definitions appeared because the
definition above was not specific enough, but this thread didn't lead to
a specific definition.
There are now three paths forward:
1) Stick with the current text in the document – the original definition
from RFC8499 plus a note that "These early definitions do not match the
current use of the term "lame delegation", but there is no consensus on
what a lame delegation is."
A possible follow-up to this is for someone to start a WG consensus
document on "lame", which can update 8499bis.
2) We still find a rough consensus on the definition proposed in the
"Meaning of lame delegation" email thread, and the WG can agree that
this is a definition useful to DNS engineers/operators.
3) Withdraw the document from WGLC so we can add definitions. Do not
propose any new terms and definitions at this stage if we choose this
option.
The third option is the least desirable outcome since the document is
already this far in the process and has seen many reviews and edits.
In order for the WG to decide how to proceed, we plan to schedule an
interim meeting in June and discuss the three options with the WG.
Thank you,
Suzanne, Tim and Benno
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
