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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this thread.

--Paul Hoffman, wearing my co-author hat

On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
> on lame delegation did not find consensus, but two specific suggestions
> were put forward.  We would like to include one of them in rfc8499bis if
> we can get consensus to do so.
> 
> The chairs are seeking input on the following two suggestions:
> 
> * Either we leave the definition of “lame delegation” as it is with the
>  comment that no consensus could be found, or
> 
> * alternatively, we include a shorter definition without specific
>  examples.
> 
> 1) Leaving the definition of lame delegation as in the current
>   draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and including the addition by the
>   authors that:
> 
>   "These early definitions do not match current use of the term "lame
>   delegation", but there is also no consensus on what a lame delegation
>   is."  (Maybe change to ... no consensus what *exactly* a lame
>   delegation is.)
> 
> 2) Update the definition as proposed by Duane and with the agreement of
>   some others (see mailing list https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4E1AQKGivEHtJDB85gSNhofRuyM/):
> 
>   "A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
>   servers designated by the delegating NS RRset or by the child's apex
>   NS RRset answers non-authoritatively [or not at all] for a zone".
> 
> The chairs ask the WG to discuss these two alternative definitions of
> the term "lame delegation".  We close the consultation period on
> Thursday 4 May.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Benno