Dear WG,
The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
on lame delegation did not find consensus, but two specific suggestions
were put forward. We would like to include one of them in rfc8499bis if
we can get consensus to do so.
The chairs are seeking input on the following two suggestions:
* Either we leave the definition of “lame delegation” as it is with the
comment that no consensus could be found, or
* alternatively, we include a shorter definition without specific
examples.
1) Leaving the definition of lame delegation as in the current
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and including the addition by the
authors that:
"These early definitions do not match current use of the term "lame
delegation", but there is also no consensus on what a lame delegation
is." (Maybe change to ... no consensus what *exactly* a lame
delegation is.)
2) Update the definition as proposed by Duane and with the agreement of
some others (see mailing list
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4E1AQKGivEHtJDB85gSNhofRuyM/):
"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".
The chairs ask the WG to discuss these two alternative definitions of
the term "lame delegation". We close the consultation period on
Thursday 4 May.
Regards,
Benno
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
