> -----Original Message----- > From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of k claffy > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 12:41 AM > To: George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> > Cc: Benno Overeinder <be...@nlnetlabs.nl>; DNSOP Working Group > <dnsop@ietf.org>; DNSOP Chairs <dnsop-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis for revised lame > delegation definition > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > > I agree it would greatly help to include the more precise terms. > > Note that Scott's current EPP draft is still using this term, citing the > definition > in 1912. Should the term be removed from Scott's draft, or acknowledged > that it is now historic? > If Scott replaces it with another more precise term, can we get that term in > this document so that future uses can cite this document?
[SAH] My draft uses the term in only one place where it describes practices that can "introduce risks of lame delegation". I'm inclined to change that sentence to something like "introduce risks of invalid DNS delegation" to avoid the term completely if it eliminates the need for a normative reference that doesn't yet exist. Scott _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
