On Jun 27, 2023, at 12:32 PM, k claffy <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
Correct. > are there notes/minutes/recording of this meeting? Of course. See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dnsop/meetings/> > 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. You are being too kind by saying "more specific": you could have said "different". > 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" No one has said that. There is *plenty* of discussion on this list, and in places like SSAC. > 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.. Please see the earlier threads on this mailing list where people say what they mean by "lame", and compare that to either of the two definitions in the current draft. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
