On 11 Jul 2012, at 16:09, Chris Thompson wrote:
| 3.2. The NS RRset
|
| Both the child and the parent have a copy of the NS RRset. These
| RRsets are supposed to be identical. If they differ, it is
referred
| as a "Lame Delegation".
I have always thought that a "Lame Delegation" was something more
specific:
an NS record in the delegation that points to a server that is not
in fact
authoritative for the zone at all. Is the above actually common usage?
There's no formal definition of the term AFAICT. So it can mean
whatever anyone wants it to mean.
RFC4697 seems to be the closest thing to a (somewhat indirect)
definition but is only a BCP and RFC1912 is just Informational. That
said, "lame delegation" is commonly understood to be a delegation to a
server which should be authoritative but isn't. This may or may not be
the same thing as a parent and child disagreement about some zone's NS
RRset.
So it may be better if the draft uses a different term for the
scenario where the parent and child do not have the same NS RRset.
Perhaps that can be called a Broken Delegation? Because that's what it
is....
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
