On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:41:28PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote: > However, after the discussion in the interim meeting, I don't think there's > any need to "replace" lame delegation with anything as the situation I've > seen it used in no longer is a topic of discussion, except when we are > dredging up history for the sake of history.
zoinks. does this mean dnsop is deprecating a term in wide use and not replacing it with anything? are there notes/minutes/recording of this meeting? i apologize for not speaking up earlier. my activation energy for disagreeing with you guys is extremely high. ;( but the term is being used in ietf drafts, at least the epp-delete one now before this WP, referencing and matching the broad symptom-oriented definition in 1912 and the more specific definition in 1713. the term has appeared in scientific papers for decades, also referencing and matching both definitions. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22lame+delegation%22+DNS&btnG= duane initiated this thread because an SSAC WP is trying to write about the same issue covered in the epp-delete draft, an issue gautam quanitified (and described as a type of lame delegation because it matches 1912/1713 defn) in: https://cs.stanford.edu/~gakiwate/papers/risky_bizness_imc21.pdf which the IETF invited him to present 6 months ago: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-115-irtfopen-risky-bizness-risks-derived-from-registrar-name-management/ so it seems inaccurate to say lame delegations are "no longer a topic of discussion" or (as -07- says), "These early definitions do not match the current use of the term." esp. without citing any current use of the term, much less a use that is inconsistent with these defns.. k _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
