Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Fri, 04 May 2018 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDEF129C56 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qppjs6enQiIZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x229.google.com (mail-vk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB4912895E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id g72-v6so9056541vke.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4ZabxCxfcjGSNf00XDy7Eb3H77qkJd0e4yI79SvRg58=; b=EYPTLnIxJxKM/MUZd+nGc5bTP2BU0wPEC0RwQes6r1cJqX4SC4gU8kn/g9DBA7y3Ba SUK2/eZUUr+TuUtIV+MQ5xri9sAtDzwV0GQBj01hxFk0fkiJPEhDP/Gm3SL3ppgrYKfK yh2PvFPwRb2zPr28alQDVMoN1idzInWEvmgWM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4ZabxCxfcjGSNf00XDy7Eb3H77qkJd0e4yI79SvRg58=; b=DHL/ld5FWLEyamYlDAT03LN0XR7N8cYnqRn2LAXQSF+vFyxZYDCN6vpKXXsBjUaWcj sosk8pv0lMa377z928xZMTKGRedIVHqPfXdkwjqdHNZebxj863Nmas4ZRTXpwKKXYZM+ +RpAOMzWuLhAn0R4CK+76xUen6LjEDeWa8XgKir1acrv3Sv2BCkz+kvslmd6s5wVhLIS Not/2EiwmaKntkGcYKXz9dGVt1FVpaTDncj2g+Y3Kd8abvbqpe27F0ZJeZ8C5nQitUVQ Mg5lClTAWY55u/4EIgytrbvJhAjrZrkUljR771qAPYfxR77N/JE8IVPacchfuO46tPT1 vEnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCutKAPIc2Jji1NgpdtjRv/4iQaQu9bLHqs5XBhKdCEWkp6hAdB lY4Sk9UQ16pE0bCVAVXFJdmK7Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZr1f3ED4r+u2UcWxMkAZhEGWm/ngo1Cs+Qe33LxtcUs83vIScMDqIbX7Y1zK2hl+MEXLx4Lmw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:ac2:: with SMTP id 185-v6mr24532819vkk.194.1525444132962; Fri, 04 May 2018 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [199.212.90.48] (23-233-21-69.cpe.pppoe.ca. [23.233.21.69]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d21-v6sm5369234vke.22.2018.05.04.07.28.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 May 2018 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <81f139a9-b806-b505-946c-4c1880974073@time-travellers.org>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 10:28:51 -0400
Cc: Amreesh Phokeer <amreesh.phokeer@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <115B009D-CB28-4974-BA07-56F45D601204@hopcount.ca>
References: <7C873271-A784-4594-91A3-48C697EEC613@vpnc.org> <b3ed96d7-26fb-3d97-118b-39e8f352a38c@time-travellers.org> <87F43055-5B0E-4551-BD8D-241D93F9039F@icann.org> <CACRw5znmX559DpXv5Copn9u6YN0mUgrk9q5QT=bpUbYArU8VzA@mail.gmail.com> <81f139a9-b806-b505-946c-4c1880974073@time-travellers.org>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4fl-PI7iZkoxCLUp5DFbI-tDYyE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 14:28:56 -0000

On 4 May 2018, at 05:59, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:

> I think that there may be something useful in creating a term when a
> delegation only points to lame servers, thus cannot be resolved at all.
> Perhaps "broken delegation"?

One thing that I think has been missing from much of this conversation (but not all) is the idea that the vantage point matters when determining if a server is lame for a particular zone [1].

Just because from my vantage point I can't get responses from any of the nameservers cited in a referral response doesn't mean that my experience is universal. Some of the servers might be reachable in other routing domains; some servers might be blocking my queries due to some transient network problem that affects just a subset of its potential clients, or because addresses near me have been participating in an attack, etc, etc.

I am wary of any description that implies that there is some simple measure of lameness that is universal.


Joe

[1] the grammar also seems to vary between opinions. Is a server lame for a domain? Or for a particular query? What do we mean by server, in the case where a single instance of nameserver software running in a single compute environment responds to multiple addresses, e.g. is dual-stacked?