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

[Mark Delany <[e-mail]>]

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
inconsistency?

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?


Mark.