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

[Mark Delany <[e-mail]>]

On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
> (usually due to a bad configuration)

Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?

As I understand it from this discussion, all "lame" delegations require a config change to
rectify, but not all mis-configurations imply lameness.

Lameness is that subset of configuration errors detected in a response returned during the
normal course of resolution which directly stalls or thwarts resolution.

Point being that there are many mis-configurations which do not stall or thwart resolution
such as a missing AAAA from one NS or mis-matched SOAs. These are not considered lame.

And there are some mis-configurations which *indirectly* stall or thwart resolution which
are also not considered lame.

The scenario I have in mind is the classic zone transfer failure due to ACLs. The new zone
has a changed address for one of the auths. The result being that the un-updated auth
continues serving the old address record which no longer has anything listening for DNS
queries.

Since authoritativeness or otherwise of answers from this old address cannot be
ascertained due to unresponsiveness, this is not considered a lame scenario which I find
unfortunate but understandable.

In summary, lameness appears to be a very specific set of resolution symptoms due to a
subset of configuration errors.


Mark.