[DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perform checks.

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Thu, 12 November 2015 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5FB1ACDEB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.431
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LZHaqclKoong for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F7801ACDEC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ( by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:45 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.021; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:07:45 -0800
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Lame? - was Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.
Thread-Index: AQHRHRBy66jpnw98S0+YL10CdZ+dGg==
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:07:44 +0000
Message-ID: <D269946F.11187%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3530135257_12421380"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IfvsOon_zoRUOF01yp2mo_z4zSk>
Subject: [DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:07:48 -0000

One of my hot buttons - meant to be one of the reasons why trying to
define "goodness" never has succeeded.  (Note, I'm using past tense.)

On 11/11/15, 1:47, "DNSOP on behalf of Viktor Dukhovni"
<dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

>  * Lame delegations are wrong.

When I did inspection of "lameness" I ran across the definition of a lame
server (in a few RFCs) being a name server, named in an NS set that
responded that it was not authoritative for the answer sought.

I cannot say that I have ever seen a definition of a lame delegation, just
a lame server.

I'll note up front that wikipedia has a page on Lame Delegation:


It references an ARIN policy from 2002:


I did the research work for ARIN on that proposal.  The work did not
center on Lame Delegations but rather Lame Servers as the code was

The Wikipedia entry gives no other hint (suggested reference) as to what a
Lame Delegation is.

Other responses to a web search give other mentions of Lame Delegation,
not one reference to an RFC.

...What this message should be saying is that before re-using a known
buzzword, please offer a precise definition of it.  I recognize a
hand-waving feel for what is a lame delegation, but with that as a
starting point, you'll never come to consensus on a testing tool.