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

Mark Andrews <> Fri, 05 May 2023 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CFEC1519B9 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 18:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b="Tq4wLnVz"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b="CyI5vE7G"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1PP8HF61ZCd for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 18:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22DCC151540 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 18:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1ADF3AB01F; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 E1ADF3AB01F
Authentication-Results:; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=ostpay; t=1683250477; cv=none; b=FhsfwWH6ROovdnlbzLjA9DKfzZzSXMdQBwAlf6eKWTIc43uc2DBTYk46hWYDrLKJM6853EGpM8sGCfv6l0jeCDoIRxn2mIu4WUusbM9gTqvwu5BtazzhzCpFw4yywlarmjEIQQLVEBMvVqdUqJdrBgjrJpBrMdMnZGMBqL8V+Tg=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=ostpay; t=1683250477; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=CpC4lI9LvQeFzqaCT+M+Rntp4n2h8ravHJrB5eooLI4=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=SqxotugaKfc+oCgHYjYtAYcza9KCa80lIWE9o28hSjhl73rX+QbgnuZFK89ODdFj4AZJnVq9U2Bfm3BLl8IKd8FJ6T7l7JgMrWoMWgoGNmigF/GPT+SIH3K+kh2fYgWiQ3jNlIFL22fmEmdctU65xniVMzO81nwaPRR+ltY/LCA=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 E1ADF3AB01F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=ostpay; t=1683250476; bh=OlQ85pmXjr/2e+NNlPwu4YSOl+W6HgWrKjCol6QBSUA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Tq4wLnVz1gx0nVCJjSWk+Zz/GYYPzGjaLUI6qjVYv022QGu31ya9r6Qxv9jJ7/IDY nTYBr2pAs6OYsrYAB6zb/Q4cjfWawmtm+r2VmCaIXeopqtWLQvBgYkOOL8F8EoAToa 2ayaQZrz2iFxO/N4eQTBd9jEV3ADMU6InTXX9eEE=
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0AA9B86842; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FC8B86908; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 A2FC8B86908
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=05DFB016-56A2-11EB-AEC0-15368D323330; t=1683250476; bh=CpC4lI9LvQeFzqaCT+M+Rntp4n2h8ravHJrB5eooLI4=; h=Mime-Version:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=CyI5vE7GlzRKRduwzIi1jUZpU86Hoe1FZklmI/6XjB64RtV7aucHxvA1mFWyZG94z cC5T8lxFGkpO3mELdxtSlbkEKwkiG5qaQ1zoA0OinoFfQerY9HqlDo87hOkPYJU5ox yvH1eQNAYVCDFDDWzgBFGzekN1qO5bH0OQtSUbyA=
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6avi0JDSC1QT; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:34:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB1A8B86842; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:34:35 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
From: Mark Andrews <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 11:34:25 +1000
Cc: DNSOP Working Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: George Michaelson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 01:34:43 -0000

What named logged as a lame server for a zone was what could be
demonstrated to be lame (broken) from a single response when performing
the resolution process (i.e. not configured to be serving the zone).
It was intended to provide information to the operator of the recursive
server that something was broken with the zones involved in looking up
an answer to a query made to that server with the possible hope that
someone would report the issue so that it could be fixed. “lame server”
was never intended to exclude other ways things could be configured such
that an answer from the zone was not returned.

With load balancers that needs to be extended to “not fully/correctly
configured to be serving the zone”, with firewalls blocking the port “not
fully/correctly configured to be effectively serving the zone”.


> On 5 May 2023, at 10:34, George Michaelson <> wrote:
> When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject
> (the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry,
> but the declarative "this is what it means" seems to me to be failing,
> hard.
> The subject(s) are the zone(s) that are lame? thats one case. the
> other case, is the subject is the NS which is listed as authoritative
> but isn't serving. OK so you can qualify "lameness" to "the zone is
> lame" or "the zone has some lame NS" or "this NS is lame for the zone"
> -But they have different subjects and objects. what is "this" in each
> case? different.
> And not serving has (at least) two forms: you respond to 53 but reply
> incoherently if at all about the zone, and you aren't even responsive
> on 53. I can believe there are more.
> The objective is to fix it. You are either talking to the parent zone
> delegates to get something changed in the parent zone, or to the zone
> NS admin to get something changed at the NS, or to network technicians
> about why something along the path isn't working for you. So thats 3
> cases at least.
> Yet, we all seem to call this "lame" for some purposes. At least 2x
> who talked to, at least 2x forms, and at least 2x subjects but one
> Objective: -- fix it.
> I don't think we've cohered on a meaning. I respect Paul Vixies intent
> in giving clear origination of the term to Mark, but I do not agree
> the term means now what he said decades ago, its clear we don't (in
> this mail thread) really have a unitary meaning. If we did we wouldn't
> be here.
> I don't see how a single paragraph statement without OR ... alternates
> is going to cover what people patently have been saying "is lame" for
> some time, not aligning to a single meaning.
> I liked the proposed paragraph because it had the ".. or not at all"
> -And yet some people seem determined to say thats the "wrong" bit on
> the definition.
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: