Dear WG,
The extended WGLC rfc8499bis has been closed. With the specific
question from the chairs, the WG did not find consensus on either of the
two proposed definitions of the term "lame delegation". In one
subthread of the discussion there was some convergence towards a
definition, but in other subthreads we saw suggestions for new terms and
definitions, which was not the question to the working group.
The chairs are taking the current WGLC discussion into their evaluation
of how to proceed and will share our way forward with the document in
the first half next week.
In the meantime, please continue the discussion.
Best regards,
-- Benno
On 27/04/2023 22:05, Benno Overeinder wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
