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

Joe Abley <> Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901C5C151522 for <>; Mon, 1 May 2023 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 jjWdgtzICsbi for <>; Mon, 1 May 2023 14:15:46 -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 D7E76C14CE25 for <>; Mon, 1 May 2023 14:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15:29 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=protonmail; t=1682975743; x=1683234943; bh=qq3YykfoHzuDiyvsZFWiBUR/FMM45w/j23Sz9DOn264=; 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=OpJom4CXwEN+vqcTWMBh3cqjwvRiNrlQDxBFYEwlpy5yLjjz7r9dxscREVTnuAKIZ hfXd4t1E2v8owd1aKA/9xnRKDyujtfqw2i2Y0597xluuLWUKq4qN/bEX2WfObiKXUB Ys40Kg8MlkzNhawzLQ+IvGoB7Dwe3HuR8u66eRLsw+01mYr3oHRuFp4zNNsKybM0W1 Edbuvtw4gCeIOwBENB8wozO1DAEpwjsUNU8Nltxo3wFmFnEvDxqjB/t5Dp4UToQ+Ss D9h1Nsr7LwU73SJNOuGk9hRqy91RDV443x3YMBOgCAve+BdXxdTZ7u42BmmXbX5DtZ fHmbMISeQ3riA==
From: Joe Abley <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_p1hYL2S2l9HD8DI9lqHx7nEuVBnOBkv36EGyuTftTyU"
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: Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15:50 -0000

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany <[](mailto:On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany <<a href=)> wrote:

> On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
>> (usually due to a bad configuration)
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?

Yes -- some people (not me) would evidently describe a server that they didn't receive a response from as lame. Such a situation could be a result of a bad configuration but also any number of other things, such as a network problem or a misconfigured firewall.

From one conversation off-list, I think part of the problem with this word results from regional differences in language. To me the word "lame" is a synonym for "cripplied" in the sense of not being able to walk or run as expected, which seems like a reasonable analogy for a server that is badly configured (albeit one that is a bit uncomfortably ableist). To others it just means generally bad.