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

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

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.

The subject(s) are the zone(s) that are lame? thats one case. the
other case, is the subject is the NS which is listed as authoritative
but isn't serving. OK so you can qualify "lameness" to "the zone is
lame" or "the zone has some lame NS" or "this NS is lame for the zone"
-But they have different subjects and objects. what is "this" in each
case? different.

And not serving has (at least) two forms: you respond to 53 but reply
incoherently if at all about the zone, and you aren't even responsive
on 53. I can believe there are more.

The objective is to fix it. You are either talking to the parent zone
delegates to get something changed in the parent zone, or to the zone
NS admin to get something changed at the NS, or to network technicians
about why something along the path isn't working for you. So thats 3
cases at least.

Yet, we all seem to call this "lame" for some purposes. At least 2x
who talked to, at least 2x forms, and at least 2x subjects but one
Objective: -- fix it.

I don't think we've cohered on a meaning. I respect Paul Vixies intent
in giving clear origination of the term to Mark, but I do not agree
the term means now what he said decades ago, its clear we don't (in
this mail thread) really have a unitary meaning. If we did we wouldn't
be here.

I don't see how a single paragraph statement without OR ... alternates
is going to cover what people patently have been saying "is lame" for
some time, not aligning to a single meaning.

I liked the proposed paragraph because it had the ".. or not at all"
-And yet some people seem determined to say thats the "wrong" bit on
the definition.