Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
> Then, how about we stop using "lame delegation" and use terms like > "imperfect delegation" or "incomplete delegation"? Hm, not sure I like either of those two alternatives. I'll give my reasons. In general, to my ear they sound very "generic". A delegation may be "perfect", meaning that it's fully consistent, and all the name servers in the NS RRset responds appropriately for the zone. Would then any deviation from that status make the delegation "imperfect"? I'll wager that there are deviations from this status which would not cause a single delegation to be characterized as "lame" (according to previous discussion), e.g. you may just introduce inconsistency, but all NSes still respond OK. For the second: what's the difference between an inconsistent delegation and an incomplete delegation? What aspect of it is "incomplete"? As should be evident from the earlier discussion, I think the characterization being discussed isn't about the entire NS RRset, but rather about a specific NS record from the set and how the pointed-to name server responds when queried about names in the delegated zone. I still call that "a (single) delegation", but I see that others may disagree, and want to use "delegation" only when talking about the entire NS RRset. So, while it's longer, "a non-productive (single) delegation" is perhaps an alternative which doesn't rely on the "lame" word and which characterizes the same behaviour. I dislike it because it's so much longer, so may not "catch on", but it is perhaps more precise. That should cover "responses from name servers not serving the zone", be that responding either with a REFUSED error code (typical "correct" error code from a non-recursive / publishing name server not set up to serve the zone), or with an upwards referral (nowadays a response frowned upon as a response when not being set up to serve the queried-for zone), or any other error code for that matter, e.g. SERVFAIL for an expired zone. A failure to respond is IMHO not sufficient to earn this label; such a name server's label should perhaps just be "un-responsive", possibly qualified with "from ". Not sure about which label to paste on the load balancers which lack the concept of zone, and only know about A records, and respond to queries for (or other esoteric and "unknown" records, such as NS and SOA) with an upwards referral... Other than "broken", of course. It can however possibly be contested that it's not "a non-productive (single) delegation", although I hesitate here. Regards, - Håvard ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
I would posit that the potential to view the word as offensive has increased as language usage has changed in the intervening years since it was first used in this context. As one who is a) a native English speaker and b) grew up in an environment which had an equestrian community element, ‘lame’ to me, implied a transient condition, which has seemed somewhat appropriate to use in our context. However, the change in language has resulted in a change of the primary meaning to many people, and it may now be found offensive by some. As such, I believe it’s time to look at changing. Bob > On Jun 8, 2023, at 19:48, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Paul Wouters writes: > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > terms now than the previous discussion round. > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
Paul Wouters writes: > That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. > It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new terms now than the previous discussion round. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote: It may be too late, but the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning. Then, how about we stop using "lame delegation" That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
It may be too late, but the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning.
As a non-native English user, I ask the dictionaries.
For example, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lame
The dictionary shows that lame" has four meanings:
"physically disabled", "injury", "weak",
Slang ("dull", "stupid" or "uninteresting").
In the discussions and previous usages of "lame delegation",
the "lame delegation" is not the perfect delegation.
We have the definition of "perfect"/"complete" delegation.
Then, other delegations are "inperfect"/"incomplete" delegation.
"lame" may have the discriminatory meaning.
Then, how about we stop using "lame delegation" and use terms like
"imperfect delegation" or "incomplete delegation" ?
For future discussion, the "imperfect"/"incomplete" delegation may be
classified.
--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
