On Apr 8, 2023, at 7:12 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> 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 be a very good time to do it, given that we are after WG Last Call
> but waiting for AD writeup. Otherwise, the current wording will be used for
> IETF Last Call.
>
As co-author of the draft, my reading of the list is that there is no consensus
on a new definition to add to the draft. The chairs are the ones to make
consensus calls, and they might disagree.
The current definition is:
Lame delegation: "A lame delegations exists [sic] when a nameserver
is delegated responsibility for providing nameservice for a zone
(via NS records) but is not performing nameservice for that zone
(usually because it is not set up as a primary or secondary for
the zone)." (Quoted from [RFC1912], Section 2.8) Another
definition is that a lame delegation "...happens when a name
server is listed in the NS records for some domain and in fact it
is not a server for that domain. Queries are thus sent to the
wrong servers, who don't know nothing [sic] (at least not as
expected) about the queried domain. Furthermore, sometimes these
hosts (if they exist!) don't even run name servers." (Quoted from
[RFC1713], Section 2.3)
However, it seems clear that there is a desire to indicate that the current
definition is incomplete. I propose to add:
These early definitions do not match current use of the term "lame
delegation",
but there is not consensus on what a lame delegation is.
Is this a reasonable addition?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
