IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 02 May 2023 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 8ED9EC151B38 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2023 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 dDrJP0s7SPHx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2023 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C2CC151996 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2023 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q9jyz23DDz46v; Tue, 2 May 2023 17:04:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1683039851; bh=mj9F88CDzYtw5DrBCBjvkhlKDLB6daS/gcL7v/APQZw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=uv+/A4Xn7GxZhpxHwIU8UAYPqwxge2PqNXSBM/mgock9dGsccCxYuFvJJ/mAbn3N/ AGqTsJss0uIvUb3KLAYRtrKYQn/7SRlSJGO0oheSP/F6t0X4ff4WAed2lILIaGCbmc XOv9UXY2/wQ7pWANWDVIrpzkR5bwxNFrl8hOYhE8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FNvnPB6M2yAi; Tue, 2 May 2023 17:04:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 2 May 2023 17:04:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8267AB7FC7E; Tue, 2 May 2023 11:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E82CB7FC7D; Tue, 2 May 2023 11:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 11:04:09 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Frederico A C Neves <fneves=40registro.br@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZFD/zr7Qse5WzIQZ@registro.br>
Message-ID: <0f956eb3-7d3e-2258-59f0-d0031c506835@nohats.ca>
References: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl> <40C193AF-938C-418F-924E-94F4DD358164@icann.org> <B93A0E80-08F8-4FDB-81C2-47C465D8DDB4@verisign.com> <ZFD/zr7Qse5WzIQZ@registro.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TaI1x8BBddj-hC3rcV8ViP8f5wg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] 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 15:04:17 -0000

On Tue, 2 May 2023, Frederico A C Neves wrote:

> On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 04:43:11PM +0000, Wessels, Duane 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".

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email