On 5/1/23, 12:58 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of John Kristoff" <[email protected]
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +0000
Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> 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 agree it is imperfect. I won't derail. Until
someone comes up with better terminology, I'm likely still going to
refer to all those many cases we see in operation (usually due to a bad
configuration) as a form of lame delegation when a delegation is
effectively broken. :-)
When there is a timeout situation, there can be no conclusion about the remote
end's status.
It could be that the remote end is properly set up to answer for a zone, but
queries to the server are dropped on the way there. Or responses dropped on
the way back. Or that the timeout is simple too quick. The timeout may have
nothing at all to do with the remote end.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
