Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 04 May 2018 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F9512D870 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xjr5k5LlIjER for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 372DD126D85 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:57:37 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:57:37 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
CC: Amreesh Phokeer <amreesh.phokeer@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology
Thread-Index: AQHT446ooqhrNUKZXU+hmqNtsXc9ZaQf4PYAgABNToD//74lgA==
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 15:57:36 +0000
Message-ID: <1CE20F6E-6508-459C-BD1B-F0EACD59F7E3@icann.org>
References: <7C873271-A784-4594-91A3-48C697EEC613@vpnc.org> <b3ed96d7-26fb-3d97-118b-39e8f352a38c@time-travellers.org> <87F43055-5B0E-4551-BD8D-241D93F9039F@icann.org> <CACRw5znmX559DpXv5Copn9u6YN0mUgrk9q5QT=bpUbYArU8VzA@mail.gmail.com> <81f139a9-b806-b505-946c-4c1880974073@time-travellers.org> <547510AF-5D0E-42A6-B04F-DF0014648EDE@icann.org> <1CEA7875-C86F-4EA6-B5F1-17B477B2EE0C@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <1CEA7875-C86F-4EA6-B5F1-17B477B2EE0C@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F71A80090080B5479226E9C5EFF7AACF@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nC_jQrL8nZidUL9cN-ke3rqqqb8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 15:57:42 -0000

Ah, yes, I missed the definition in "Tools for DNS Debugging" in quickly skimming this morning.

I read the "A lame delegation is a serious error in DNS configurations, yet a (too) common one." and skipped to the next paragraph, assuming this was yet another definition by example.

On 5/4/18, 11:53, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

    On 4 May 2018, at 8:16, Edward Lewis wrote:
    
    > FWIW, if one is to cite a definition of lame, I'd use "Common DNS 
    > Operational and Configuration Errors", February 1996, aka RFC 1912.
    
    Yep, that's the one we already have. I think it's worthwhile to also add 
    the wider definition that Amreesh pointed out in RFC 1713.
    
    --Paul Hoffman