Thank you everyone for your feedback on the meaning of lame delegation. I
expected some different interpretations, although maybe not this many! I will
take this feedback to the SSAC work party for discussion there about whether or
not to use the term in the report (perhaps with a
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:48:11PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > At the time such a delegation response is being processed by a resolver,
> > it looks just fine. Nothing to see here, move along (down the tree)...
>
> I disagree. If either ns1.provider.net or ns2.provider.net is not
>
>> > ; ANSWER
>> > ; AUTHORITY
>> > example.com. IN NS ns1.provider.net.
>> > example.com. IN NS ns2.provider.net.
>> >
>> > is a valid delegation response (and so not from this perspective a LAME
>> > delegation), whether or not the target servers actualy serve the zone.
>>
>> I
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 06:40:55PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > ; ANSWER
> > ; AUTHORITY
> > example.com. IN NS ns1.provider.net.
> > example.com. IN NS ns2.provider.net.
> >
> > is a valid delegation response (and so not from this perspective a LAME
> > delegation), whether or
>> I believe that the most natural perspective is from the view point of a
>> resolver attempting to classify a (non?)response to a query sent to an
>> authoritative server.
>
> Another way of thinking about this perspective is that, e.g., a
> delegation response from a.gtld-servers.net (.COM
Joe Abley wrote on 2023-04-04 09:14:
> ...
I think it's pretty common to talk about one nameserver for a zone being lame
and another nameserver for the same zone not. Certainly that's not an uncommon
configuration to find in the wild.
I have always used "lame delegation" to refer to the
On Apr 4, 2023, at 11:49, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2023, at 4:50 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
>
>> Interesting dilemmas. I'm not sure there are obvious answers. Perhaps
>> lame delegation is the general concept, but specific failure modes need
>> better characterization?
>
> I suspect you
> On Apr 3, 2023, at 4:50 PM, John Kristoff wrote:
>
> Interesting dilemmas. I'm not sure there are obvious answers. Perhaps
> lame delegation is the general concept, but specific failure modes need
> better characterization?
I suspect you could declare a definition such as
If
Havard Eidnes writes:
> If I'm not terribly mistaken, EDE is for communicating recursive
> lookup or validation errors between a recursor / validator and a
> stub resolver
Actually, no. We kept it very deliberate and generic so it could be
used in any context. The requirement, though, is that
