Peter Thomassen wrote on 2023-04-15 10:13:
On 4/10/23 15:39, Wessels, Duane wrote:
“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”.
... or by the *child's*
On 4/17/23, 5:18 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Wes Hardaker" wrote:
>I'm not saying that some people don't understand it. It's just a weird
>english choice that we're sticking with because of history. ...
There are lots of "weird English choices" in play. Consistency is most
important, especially
Paul Hoffman writes:
> The term "lame delegation" is defined in two RFCs, which are
> referenced in the terminology draft. This has caused the term to be
> commonly used.
I'm not saying that some people don't understand it. It's just a weird
english choice that we're sticking with because of
On 4/3/23, 4:02 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Wessels, Duane" wrote:
>
>(1) NS.EXAMPLE.ORG resolves to an IP address. Queries to the IP address
> result in a REFUSED, SERVFAIL, upward referral, or some other indication the
> name server is not configured to serve the zone.
>
>(2)
On 4/10/23 15:39, Wessels, Duane wrote:
“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”.
... or by the *child's* apex NS rrset ...
(The delegating zone also has
On Apr 13, 2023, at 11:56 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> Warren Kumari writes:
>
>> Yup, lame delegation and lame server are still in very common use —
>
> That doesn't mean it should be.
The term "lame delegation" is defined in two RFCs, which are referenced in the
terminology draft. This has
Warren Kumari writes:
> Yup, lame delegation and lame server are still in very common use —
That doesn't mean it should be.
> and (IMO) it's usually clear from context what is being
> communicated.
Having been historically (and likely futurely) confused by the term, I
disagree. It is not
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> No one proposed to retire the term?
>
> Not yet, I believe.
>
> If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point
> of view, why not document the term as is, with
On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> No one proposed to retire the term?
Not yet, I believe.
> If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point of
> view, why not document the term as is, with a note explaining it is
> incomplete (without trying to
No one proposed to retire the term? If unclear and additionally inappropriate
from an inclusive language point of view, why not document the term as is, with
a note explaining it is incomplete (without trying to fix it) and calling the
term historic?
Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a
On Apr 8, 2023, at 7:12 PM, Paul Hoffman 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
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
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 15:39, Wessels, Duane
wrote:
> 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 like this.
Joe
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 01:39:21PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> 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".
This is a decent definition of the
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
<>
I know the dev who coined the term and I know what it meant. If that term is
not now useful to you feel free to make up one of your own rather than
redefining this one to suit changing tastes.
p vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
e: +46 73 065 3899
https://internetstiftelsen.se/
From: DNSOP on behalf of
paul=40redbarn@dmarc.ietf.org
Date: Sunday, 9 April 2023 at 09:32
To: Paul Hoffman , dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Meaning of lame delegation
"If one or more authoritative servers designated by the
"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 wrote:
I have been on vacation this week and am just seeing
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
