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

[Joe Abley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benno,

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 16:05, Benno Overeinder <[[e-mail]](mailto:On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 16:05, Benno Overeinder <<a href=)> wrote:

> 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".

This is close to what I understand by the term.

I would eliminate the parenthetical section, since as I have droned on about at some length already I think the lack of a response is not what we understand by "lame" -- lameness involves a response, and without a response there can be no lameness.

I am also unsure about "or by the child's apex NS RRSet" since in my mind "delegation" is something that is configured definitively north of the zone cut. But since some implementations promote the NS set found south after following a referral I suppose the effect is the same if a server exhibits the same characteristics.

Joe

>