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

Warren Kumari <> Thu, 04 May 2023 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3125CC152D9D for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 10:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40gv4kMKJ7rT for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 10:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BCFEC14CE54 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-3ef2f81a96cso6507121cf.0 for <>; Thu, 04 May 2023 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; t=1683219685; x=1685811685; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:references:from:in-reply-to :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wVvW5DYqtWoS2hSxGmPzY4F96pxBnAPy93e6p7KpzO0=; b=XLaRPtEMhW6jlWqfRu59SPn7TZiIvVXW9F/wPuAY9ZXoEw+KxGhWF6C5dVG8z9U0sJ DsZVQ3fQaOWAdZCkl4f4nSRKUwtgy7eUlwHFVAYDdb3DY33TLa6lucb+Ljt6RXRCltn5 xvDl4jmESLrWz8PbRfjp7ohaBHgg9hgX1Vf6/DIvzp5J5IVhkQHHrLYElgAfq0kL7lvI 7foYyVAkRtp7Y1oVkIHJsnOsK34TVDLwzm3jWgwaZbfM6JShjsp3EfvySOVur/aBbk6S n5/IZIXqMkva8DD1GQuR+NfU2rmh9P44lO0VwxhVhUbWOmpY7CVvi1Rf55JgL+zcCogF YQKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1683219685; x=1685811685; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:references:from:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=wVvW5DYqtWoS2hSxGmPzY4F96pxBnAPy93e6p7KpzO0=; b=HOjvLUGE3Af/n9WMA67+P7k+q7XbVLmU7kdY9T85sCJOcgBeUQ0UcdyqJMV0D5rZfP IF3p9Vzh6bP9+s0Bl8o8bc9A24e5bkNLZGEUMyFIkl134DfpWc0t+YY+5vg5VbiDbNOk 4SpFGe4dHIx17Epk2UCIEUY4Gk9Mqaa+pa0Ch6GjEQRVvSHVrD20twAE5j5vlz1PuExE hX0CiN94z04FghgHPnMqDHK0SZ3Sa5da7ROavWtXa3sGxkAlBxE8O4YqDWkmUuQOxmA1 u/dIpGG2IlxgNrF55Js6Fsd1tQR4M/JIIv6HsCOw3D93Ri2Xw9+V5tORyp16dhVXow7o NJaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDym/jOHJgFYFTp/PmNk5AgSEC3Rco2vXxQjqgQYFCqAnOd8hxvV CJomv20hyU18J/cqwQz0R0v+Srfue19Bl4uTEO2f453uDMVyl3SR
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6FQ5Iz+/fPtaUWZ81Pj6DK6UDw8eqZX0R0vo5VS+JM0Fr+4jal9w/ys8REoXlGDqxYhmxSF497md7W0uKtFag=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:11c8:b0:3f0:a426:5f29 with SMTP id n8-20020a05622a11c800b003f0a4265f29mr7327012qtk.11.1683219684607; Thu, 04 May 2023 10:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 4 May 2023 12:01:23 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Superhuman-ID: lh9dj0ec.5bc0c150-6b10-4942-bebe-977a2e20a9c0
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft00854cb96549a494
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2023-05-03T22:05:57Z)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 12:01:23 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Mark Delany <>
Cc: DNSOP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061668805fae11f85"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 17:01:51 -0000

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany <> 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 " is a lame
delegation". I own both "" 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

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…


> 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