IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Kristoff <jtk@dataplane.org> Tue, 02 May 2023 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jtk@dataplane.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364E5C16950F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2023 10:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kKEMKbaLX5eO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2023 10:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dataplane.org (dataplane.org [IPv6:2001:49f0:d0c4:3::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD00DC151999 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2023 10:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dataplane.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A676880591 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2023 17:19:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 12:19:27 -0500
From: John Kristoff <jtk@dataplane.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20230502121927.121934e6@dataplane.org>
In-Reply-To: <ovdbVoNO3SETnssmcX_ys9g7p1j9CEsl1VUMNYZgwHj1W-hTDQZPTaSfswmU_LmnYB5Yq0F_oHVjwfJB6z8fcNdg6Zp-YiVEQrZyneEp9Pg=@hopcount.ca>
References: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl> <40C193AF-938C-418F-924E-94F4DD358164@icann.org> <20230501115805.5b4e5115@dataplane.org> <0.2.0-final-1682972681.287-0xd4930e@qmda.emu.st> <ovdbVoNO3SETnssmcX_ys9g7p1j9CEsl1VUMNYZgwHj1W-hTDQZPTaSfswmU_LmnYB5Yq0F_oHVjwfJB6z8fcNdg6Zp-YiVEQrZyneEp9Pg=@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JCftggzjOpbBFKK_FDOtN1rx-Uw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 02 May 2023 17:19:33 -0000

On Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15:29 +0000
Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> Yes -- some people (not me) would evidently describe a server that
> they didn't receive a response from as lame.

Lots of people and organizations tend to talk about "types" or "ways"
in which a server or delegation is lame. Here are a few well known
organizations or popular pages talking about what lame means so you
know the sorts of inconsistency (that's a term I like :-) you're up
against:

  <https://kb.isc.org/docs/lame-servers-what-are-they-and-how-does-bind-deal-with-them>
  <https://blog.apnic.net/2021/03/16/the-prevalence-persistence-perils-of-lame-nameservers/>
  <https://cdocs.menandmice.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6360996>
  <https://dnsinstitute.com/research/lame-servers-201911/>
  <https://github.com/zonemaster/zonemaster/blob/master/docs/internal-documentation/functional-tests/Configuration-TP/configuration03.md>
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System>

John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email