IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Kristoff <jtk@dataplane.org> Mon, 01 May 2023 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jtk@dataplane.org>
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 59999C151549 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 09:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufqntAhJL6lZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dataplane.org (dataplane.org [IPv6:2001:49f0:d0c4:3::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2A0C151543 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 May 2023 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dataplane.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896BE6880853; Mon, 1 May 2023 16:58:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 11:58:05 -0500
From: John Kristoff <jtk@dataplane.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20230501115805.5b4e5115@dataplane.org>
In-Reply-To: <40C193AF-938C-418F-924E-94F4DD358164@icann.org>
References: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl> <40C193AF-938C-418F-924E-94F4DD358164@icann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/A-Cg6Pe-KYwX2X_bgcf82VjoAJg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 01 May 2023 16:58:07 -0000

On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +0000
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this
> thread.

I'm not particularly satisfied with the requirement that there must be
a response to meet the definition, but that seems to be the consensus
even if most seem to agree it is imperfect.  I won't derail.  Until
someone comes up with better terminology, I'm likely still going to
refer to all those many cases we see in operation (usually due to a bad
configuration) as a form of lame delegation when a delegation is
effectively broken. :-)

John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email