IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.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 901C5C151522 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 14:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hopcount.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 jjWdgtzICsbi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 May 2023 14:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4317.proton.ch (mail-4317.proton.ch [185.70.43.17]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E76C14CE25 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; 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; d=hopcount.ca; 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==
To: m9p@india.emu.st, dnsop@ietf.org
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <ovdbVoNO3SETnssmcX_ys9g7p1j9CEsl1VUMNYZgwHj1W-hTDQZPTaSfswmU_LmnYB5Yq0F_oHVjwfJB6z8fcNdg6Zp-YiVEQrZyneEp9Pg=@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <0.2.0-final-1682972681.287-0xd4930e@qmda.emu.st>
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>
Feedback-ID: 62430589:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_p1hYL2S2l9HD8DI9lqHx7nEuVBnOBkv36EGyuTftTyU"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Wr5aAfhBh8KHm26vEuPqsBYQJP0>
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: Mon, 01 May 2023 21:15:50 -0000

On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany <[m9p@india.emu.st](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.

Joe

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email