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

I've been around in DNS for quite a while.

The way I've always heard "lame delegation" used is in the sense of a
useless parent NS record at a delegation point. Note that "delegation" is
singular. The usual case is that the server name in the NS RR is a
non-existent name or has no address associated with it or, if it does have
an address, there is no DNS server there. If an NS RR at the delegation
point has an existing name that resolves to the address of a DNS server,
its lameness is getting pretty mild but if that server can't answer
authoritatively, then I guess it really is still a lame delegation...

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 4:05 PM Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
> on lame delegation did not find consensus, but two specific suggestions
> were put forward.  We would like to include one of them in rfc8499bis if
> we can get consensus to do so.
>
> The chairs are seeking input on the following two suggestions:
>
> * Either we leave the definition of “lame delegation” as it is with the
>    comment that no consensus could be found, or
>
> * alternatively, we include a shorter definition without specific
>    examples.
>
> 1) Leaving the definition of lame delegation as in the current
>     draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and including the addition by the
>     authors that:
>
>     "These early definitions do not match current use of the term "lame
>     delegation", but there is also no consensus on what a lame delegation
>     is."  (Maybe change to ... no consensus what *exactly* a lame
>     delegation is.)
>
> 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".
>
> The chairs ask the WG to discuss these two alternative definitions of
> the term "lame delegation".  We close the consultation period on
> Thursday 4 May.
>
> Regards,
>
> Benno
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>