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

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> writes:

> > There I fixed it for you:
> 
> that's a meme, right?

Yes, it was a joke.  Apologies if it offended you in any way.

My point was to indicate that:

1. There are multiple (mis)understandings of what a lame delegation is
(regardless of whether or not the original terminology was more precise
and drift has happened)

2. There are in fact multiple underlying issues that could be better
documented in error messages to better explain to operators exactly what
problems are being seen.  This may require multiple terms to achieve a
better set of explanations.  Similar to how EDE has extended the reasons
why a SERVFAIL (or other error codes) may have been encountered.

> if you want to fix it

I've mentioned before that I think it would be better to have multiple
terms that defined more precise errors of exactly what was going wrong
from the point of view of the error-generator.  I typically don't rehash
my past statements unless I have something to add [and I don't - my
original statements still stand].  The consensus seemed to be at the
time "it's not broken, so we shouldn't fix it".

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI