On 5/4/23, 5:08 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" wrote:
>
>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
Hi George!
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <[g...@algebras.org](mailto:On
Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson < wrote:
> When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject
> (the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry,
> but the
George is (of course) right.
I think the following set of definitions might be useful to consider.
Lame server: older language used to describe a "lame zone server".
Lame zone server: a server listed in the NS set for a zone, which is not
providing authoritative answers for said zone.
Partially
What named logged as a lame server for a zone was what could be
demonstrated to be lame (broken) from a single response when performing
the resolution process (i.e. not configured to be serving the zone).
It was intended to provide information to the operator of the recursive
server that something
When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject
(the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry,
but the declarative "this is what it means" seems to me to be failing,
hard.
The subject(s) are the zone(s) that are lame? thats one case. the
other case, is
> On 5 May 2023, at 03:01, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> 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
On May 4, 2023, at 14:07, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
>> domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
>> control, and have no relationship with.
>
> If this is common, I'm abhorred.
I think these days it's less common than
> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
> domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
> control, and have no relationship with.
If this is common, I'm abhorred.
Having the delegating party check for service for the requested zone
at time of delegation
> 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?
"Get your ducks in a row!"
A domain owner is presumably normally interested in name
resolution for names in his/hers domain
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> 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
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
> A lame delegation is said to exist when a server assumed (by
> the querier) to be authoritative for a zone replies
> non-authoritatively for {any|all} data within the zone.
...
> 3) {any|all} open question...can a server be "partially lame?"
Sadly, yes, ref. suspected load balancers who have
On 5/1/23, 12:43 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Wessels, Duane"
wrote:
>My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended
> by myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
>
>A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
>servers designated
On 5/1/23, 4:25 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" wrote:
>On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
>> (usually due to a bad configuration)
>
>Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
The difference between observing a symptom and
On 5/1/23, 12:58 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of John Kristoff" wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +
Paul Hoffman 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
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 7:43 PM, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> My parent says that the NS for exmple.com are ns1.example.com, ns2.
> example.com , but I (example.com) say that my NS are ns1.example.com, ns2.
> example.com *and* ns3.example.com. I don't (personally) think that this
> is a lame
> My parent says that the NS for exmple.com are ns1.example.com,
> ns2.example.com , but I (example.com) say that my NS are ns1.example.com,
> ns2.example.com *and* ns3.example.com. I don't (personally) think that this
> is a lame delegation. Do others?
Nope. Given this information, this is
>>"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 [or not at all] for a zone".
>>
>> ... without the "or not at all" part (so, an answer is required for
>>
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 12:14 PM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> On 5/2/23 17:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen mailto:On
> Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen <> wrote:
>
> If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a
> proper NS
On 5/2/23 17:52, Joe Abley wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen mailto:On Tue, May 2, 2023
at 11:09, Peter Thomassen <> wrote:
If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a proper NS
RRset, so it's not possible for that server's response to agree /
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen <[pe...@desec.io](mailto:On Tue,
May 2, 2023 at 11:09, Peter Thomassen < wrote:
> If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a proper
> NS RRset, so it's not possible for that server's response to agree / be
> identical
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 11:01, Paul Wouters <[p...@nohats.ca](mailto:On Tue, May
2, 2023 at 11:01, Paul Wouters < wrote:
> If all the parental NS records point to
> properly working nameservers, but the authoritative nameservers claim
> an additional NS record, I would also call the delegation
On 5/2/23 17:07, Peter Thomassen wrote:
On 5/2/23 17:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
servers designated
On 5/2/23 17:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the
On Tue, 2 May 2023, Frederico A C Neves wrote:
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 04:43:11PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more
On Tue, 2 May 2023, Peter Thomassen wrote:
This, so far, was my understanding of the definition that was given in the
other thread, and which Benno labeled (2) in the original post of this
thread:
"A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
servers designated by
Paul Vixie writes:
> > There I fixed it for you:
>
> that's a meme, right?
Yes, it was a joke. Apologies if it offended you in any way.
My point was to indicate that:
1. There are multiple (mis)understandings of what a lame delegation is
(regardless of whether or not the original
On 5/1/23 23:22, Paul Vixie wrote:
to be a lame _delegation_ means some error or misconfiguration in the server.
normally this means it's supposed to be authoritative but the zone expired or
the operator forgot or similar.
This, so far, was my understanding of the definition that was
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 04:43:11PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
> myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
>
> A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
> servers designated by the
Hi all,
I think one of the problems are that we look at the term from different
perspectives.
For me "lame delegation" is a log messages from the resolver software.
A lot of the comments are more from the human view and with different
operational angles or potential end user experience.
Moin!
On 1 May 2023, at 18:43, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
> myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
>
> A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
> servers designated by the delegating NS
Wes Hardaker wrote on 2023-05-01 14:57:
Paul Vixie writes:
if we need more terms let's invent. but this term has established meaning.
There I fixed it for you:
that's a meme, right?
If we need more terms let's invent. But this term has established meaning*s*.
the first use is still
Paul Vixie writes:
> if we need more terms let's invent. but this term has established meaning.
There I fixed it for you:
If we need more terms let's invent. But this term has established meaning*s*.
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
___
DNSOP mailing list
Joe Abley wrote on 2023-05-01 14:15:> Yes -- some people (not me) would
evidently describe a server that they
didn't receive a response from as lame. Such a situation could be a
result of a bad configuration but also any number of other things, such
as a network problem or a misconfigured
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany <[m...@india.emu.st](mailto:On Mon,
May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany < wrote:
> On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
>> (usually due to a bad configuration)
>
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
> (usually due to a bad configuration)
Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?
As I understand it from this discussion, all "lame" delegations require a
config change to
rectify, but not all mis-configurations
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:55 PM libor.peltan wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> if you really ask for opinions, here is mine.
>
> Considering the recent voluminous discussion about the meaning of Lame
> delegation, it seems to me that there are at least several people being
> more-or-less sure what the term
Hi Paul,
if you really ask for opinions, here is mine.
Considering the recent voluminous discussion about the meaning of Lame
delegation, it seems to me that there are at least several people being
more-or-less sure what the term means, with the issue that everyone
thinks something slightly
> -Original Message-
> From: DNSOP On Behalf Of Wessels, Duane
> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 12:43 PM
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: DNSOP Working Group
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension
> for lame delegation definition
>
> Cau
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +
Paul Hoffman 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
My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
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
For the record I agree strongly with Paul here.
Tim, as co-chair but my hat hides my hair
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:10 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this thread.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, wearing my co-author hat
>
> On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:05 PM,
It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this thread.
--Paul Hoffman, wearing my co-author hat
On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
> on lame delegation did not find
43 matches
Mail list logo
