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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote:
>
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
>
> The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is
> great. I say this to caution against tying the "why it is" with
> "what it is."
>
> This is a good point.
>
> I confess my perspective is that of the DNS admin/serving side focussed on
> "why it is" whereas lameness is most often observed as a "what it is" from
> the resolution/client-side perspective. To use your useful terms.
>
> I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree precisely on what
> "lame" means, what is the call to action when a zone or its name servers
> are declared lame?
>

There doesn't need to be a call to action — I can say "my car squeals when
going round a corner" - "squeals" is a way to describe the noise, and it's
just an observation, just like "a-random-test-domain.net is a lame
delegation". I own both "a-random-test-domain.net" and "my car" - unless
the squealing / lameness impacts you, I don't think that there (or needs to
be) is a call to action on either.

>
> And how is that different from any other form of miscreant auth behaviour
> such as inconsistency?
>

Well, for one thing, it's not always "miscreant auth behavior" (by which
I'm assuming you mean misbehavior by the auth server / auth server
operator).

As an example, it's quite common for people to register a domain and point
the DNS at some nameservers which they don't control, and have no
relationship with. This is not "miscreant auth behaviour" by the auth
operator - they were not involved, and also have no realistic way to deal
with the issue.

If we did want to have a call to action" we could publish something saying
that pointing a domain at a name server that isn't "yours" is uncool, but I
don't really know how effective this would be…


W



> I mean if "lame" is a precious historical term that warrants considered
> clarification, surely it has a very specific value that we can all act on,
> right? So what is that very specific value?
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>