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

Joe Abley <> Fri, 05 May 2023 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA7BC1516FF for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.086
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.086 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HEgKUNB7O5D8 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:01:03 -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 65B1DC151520 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 02:00:53 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=protonmail; t=1683252059; x=1683511259; bh=XIr8ay+o3e6sN4NoCMSr0vafngRb+h6C2sGCSHpJy84=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=CQSbo/ir+QjmuuOUaf4QKlj4FAB1xXH6kRCHTmPHBC9DlgV7wLj1vAvdQRPPka+Nz StKfYcXSgpmXzrfJR6u8j1NVz44/8pcCebktXgXlAeYJRe7GyzuX9H+tPC+10oZTEo F0fnK6QQiaaQvK2Q/ea0ihm0c8mgJnIirjhRigf2PRwaG+3CMPJf1F9+XSIXPiaxTx lZbysXjU8/pQQw+gHuM4UTMUyylah6YJh35fxReaKqPv+yT+XeHaE2HnOphQgnuvP+ 19PPndWgu98x3QAse8iN2TswL+09rsafUq1wivN9BJL0D+sPolQ/Cno84CGswF7UFo Ix8af2iHqyEew==
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_W8EsMep6uPnYJ0x7CGAN7aIsZJBDvYBAvMMH6l1rWyI"
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 02:01:08 -0000

Hi George!

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <[](mailto:On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <<a href=)> 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.

I've heard very different and contradictory understandings of lots of words in the DNS including domain, name, zone, resolver and address, Oh, and DNS. And not just by individuals: sometimes throughout established and DNS-centric organisations whose names you would definitely recognise. It doesn't seem to me that defining those ambiguous terms is contentious.

In fact if there is a universal shared definition of any term then arguably it doesn't need to have a written definition, because everybody already knows what it means and uses it correctly. Isn't the existence ambiguity what makes a definition useful?

If we avoid defining a term then we are surely ensuring ambiguity will always exist, in which case we are (I guess) saying that we don't think the ambiguity is important. But if the ambiguity is not important, what's the harm in choosing one definition in favour of others?

Of course we could just invent a new phrase. Then we'd have two terms we disagreed about for the same thing. Or are they different things? Yes and no?