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

Mark Delany <> Thu, 04 May 2023 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5063CC15C510 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 02:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tt9WwbVw-qZd for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 02:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2403:580c:e522:0:203:0:120:11]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC916C14CF1D for <>; Thu, 4 May 2023 02:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D68AB3AD2E; Thu, 4 May 2023 19:07:34 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple;; s=2019; t=1683191254; bh=8xIBG7dQ20dGYoNUnAJtAdjaS68=; h=Comments:Received:From:Comments:Message-ID:Date:Subject: References:To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To: Mime-Version; b=CnttCIQNbMc2xS8ZOkkjpsa1lBFtQ4gHP0ZdCweodoUROh7ITeHfR/qMZs3lbSFeE O/FXBMd+t/IQtrDEObGqMr07q/imVkk9ooRE/RzNO6a9jWU5qR8XzsG8gvHGXtGPS+ +WlKeGmoDgFKxoBjVQVI6TmYky+QIeJ1egtwXelo=twXelo=
Comments: QMDA 0.3a
Received: (qmail 54747 invoked by uid 1001); 4 May 2023 09:07:34 -0000
From: Mark Delany <>
Comments: QMDASubmit submit() 0.2.0-final
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 09:07:34 +0000
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: DNSOP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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: Thu, 04 May 2023 09:07:50 -0000

On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote:
> > Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?

> The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is
> great. I say this to caution against tying the "why it is" with
> "what it is."

This is a good point.

I confess my perspective is that of the DNS admin/serving side focussed on "why it is"
whereas lameness is most often observed as a "what it is" from the resolution/client-side
perspective. To use your useful terms.

I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree precisely on what "lame" means,
what is the call to action when a zone or its name servers are declared lame?

And how is that different from any other form of miscreant auth behaviour such as

I mean if "lame" is a precious historical term that warrants considered clarification,
surely it has a very specific value that we can all act on, right? So what is that
very specific value?