Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: rfc8499bis: lame

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:14 PM, Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
wrote:

> On 6/8/23, 11:23 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Bob Bownes -Seiri" <
> dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bownes@seiri.com> wrote:
>
> I would posit that the potential to view the word as offensive has
> increased as language usage has changed in the intervening years since it
> was first used in this context.
>
> Researching a now-abandoned draft on the origin of domain names, I
> struggled to find dictionary definition of 'resolve' that matched what we
> now call DNS resolution. In the early IEN and RFC (Internet Engineering
> Notes and Request for Comments), the first uses of 'resolve' were in the
> context of a group of people deciding on a path forward. As in "the
> committee resolved to investigate..."
>
> It wasn't until I asked the authors of one of the old RFCs (I now forget
> which one) where the term 'resolve' began to mean mapping a name to a
> network address. The answer was 'from the field of compiler design.' As in
> resolving a variable name to a memory location. In hindsight, this was
> obvious but trying to go from dictionary definitions and common use then
> and now, I didn't see the link.
>
> As far as 'lame' - besides the term sliding from being an objective
> assessment to a derogatory term as time goes by, it's meaning in the DNS
> context is not clear. The use I am familiar with covers a server's response
> to a query for a name for which the server has absolutely no information,
> as opposed to looking at a delegation set which has 'issues.'
>

I have always pictured this sort of like a horse, with the zone being the
"body" of the horse, and various nameservers as being hooves at the end of
the legs. Basically, the horse is balancing on 4 nameservers. If one of the
legs is "lame", trying to use it doesn't work and the horse/zone is less
stable. If enough nameservers stop working, the horse topples over.

When I say: "I  have always pictured this …" I mean the one time that I
spent a few milliseconds going: "Oh, I wonder where that term came from?
Oh, horses get lame, makes sense, look a squirrel!"

W

Both of those deserve terms and different ones as they are different
> situations.
>
> I'm not sure the case of a server receiving a query for which it has no
> information is very important anymore. Servers now will return either
> SERVFAIL or REFUSED for it and the operationally impacting situation I was
> working has been mitigated by this. However, I have seen a situation when
> earnest traffic (not DDoS flood) has been sent to a server that was not
> (yet) configured for a zone. But this happened once and was taken care of
> locally once the sender of the traffic realized what they were doing (or
> hadn't done). Perhaps the use of 'lame' for this can be left in the
> dustbin, like so many other objects we no longer use in life. Perhaps the
> queries are just 'out of bailiwick' queries relative to the server.
>
> As far as assessing the health of a parent to child delegation, I'll leave
> terminology about that to those who work that area. Broken, damaged, etc.,
> but I bet that just about any descriptive term today may drift into other
> meanings as languages evolve.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>