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 phone > On Apr 11, 2023, at 15:33, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
