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

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

On 5/2/23 17:07, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/2/23 17:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>>> My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
>>>>
>>>> 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 for a zone.
>>
>> To me this would not be lame if the NS RRsets are identical. You might
>> have still have a broken server, but if parent and child agrees, I
>> would not call it "lame".
> 
> It's possible I got this completely wrong, but if one of the NS answer authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a proper NS RRset, so it's not possible for that server's response to agree / be identical with that on the parent side. As a result, the delegation (to that server) is lame, no?

Excuse me, there was a fatal typo; I meant:

If one of the NS answers non-authoritatively, then it doesn't serve a proper NS RRset, so it's not possible for that server's response to agree / be identical with that on the parent side. As a result, the delegation (to that server) is lame, isn't it?

Best,
Peter