Re: [DNSOP] Meaning of lame delegation

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

On 4/12/23 21:17, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> Reserving the term "a lame delegation" only for the case where
> none of the delegated-to name servers serve the delegated zone
> with DNS lookup service does at least not match my current
> understanding of the term.

Much of the discussion of "lame delegation" actually has been revolving around the definition of "delegation", not the definition of "lame".

draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis currently (-06) has this to say:

    Delegation:  The process by which a separate zone is created in the
       name space beneath the apex of a given domain.  Delegation happens
       when an NS RRset is added in the parent zone for the child origin.
       Delegation inherently happens at a zone cut.  The term is also
       commonly a noun: the new zone that is created by the act of
       delegating.

This definition encompasses either a "process" or the "new zone". Our discussion of lameness seems to rest on yet another understanding of the term "delegation".

In this thread, "delegation" is used to refer to what might be described as a delegation record or delegation record set (the individual or collective NS records on the parent side). That meaning is not explicit in the above definition, making it harder to talk about "lame delegations".

It may be worthwhile adding that aspect to the definition of "delegation" (after reaching consensus about individual vs. collective). Once it's clear what a "delegation" is, it will be easier to discuss what a broken, lame, valid, <whatever> delegation is.


If the definition of "delegation" remains as quoted above, then "lame delegation" would -- just expanding from the definition -- mean either "lame process" or "lame new zone".

It would then be cleaner to talk about lame delegation *records* et cetera when we mean a specific NS configuration, instead of defining the term "lame delegation" in a way that overloads the "delegation" lemma.


FWIW, it seems to me that Paul's suggestion of adding an indication that the definition lacks consensus does, in the current state, fit the "delegation" definition just as well as the one for "lame delegation".

Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/