Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition

[Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]>]

Dear WG,

The extended WGLC rfc8499bis has been closed.  With the specific 
question from the chairs, the WG did not find consensus on either of the 
two proposed definitions of the term "lame delegation".  In one 
subthread of the discussion there was some convergence towards a 
definition, but in other subthreads we saw suggestions for new terms and 
definitions, which was not the question to the working group.

The chairs are taking the current WGLC discussion into their evaluation 
of how to proceed and will share our way forward with the document in 
the first half next week.

In the meantime, please continue the discussion.

Best regards,

-- Benno


On 27/04/2023 22:05, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Dear WG,
> 
> The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
> on lame delegation did not find consensus, but two specific suggestions
> were put forward.  We would like to include one of them in rfc8499bis if
> we can get consensus to do so.
> 
> The chairs are seeking input on the following two suggestions:
> 
> * Either we leave the definition of “lame delegation” as it is with the
>    comment that no consensus could be found, or
> 
> * alternatively, we include a shorter definition without specific
>    examples.
> 
> 1) Leaving the definition of lame delegation as in the current
>     draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and including the addition by the
>     authors that:
> 
>     "These early definitions do not match current use of the term "lame
>     delegation", but there is also no consensus on what a lame delegation
>     is."  (Maybe change to ... no consensus what *exactly* a lame
>     delegation is.)
> 
> 2) Update the definition as proposed by Duane and with the agreement of
>     some others (see mailing list 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4E1AQKGivEHtJDB85gSNhofRuyM/):
> 
>     "A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
>     servers designated by the delegating NS RRset or by the child's apex
>     NS RRset answers non-authoritatively [or not at all] for a zone".
> 
> The chairs ask the WG to discuss these two alternative definitions of
> the term "lame delegation".  We close the consultation period on
> Thursday 4 May.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Benno
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop