Re: [DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perform checks.
Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no> Thu, 12 November 2015 20:40 UTC
Return-Path: <he@uninett.no>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6321B3573 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:40:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 E6fg-qFlKfAX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:0:eeb1:d7ff:fe59:fbaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD60C1B3528 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smistad.uninett.no (smistad.uninett.no [158.38.62.77]) by smistad.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B0043EB34; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:38 +0100
Message-Id: <20151112.214038.2203571363926581692.he@uninett.no>
To: Edward.Lewis@icann.org
From: Havard Eidnes <he@uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <D269946F.11187%edward.lewis@icann.org>
References: <D269946F.11187%edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oRfH8v473HwKJ4aC-cmfZJGPmwg>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perform checks.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:40:43 -0000
> When I did inspection of "lameness" I ran across the definition > of a lame server (in a few RFCs) being a name server, named in > an NS set that responded that it was not authoritative for the > answer sought. > > I cannot say that I have ever seen a definition of a lame > delegation, just a lame server. Well, the lameness is always in the context of a particular zone. I think the Wikipedia definition is spot on. The server itself isn't necessarily "lame" unless you qualify with a zone. Therefore I think it's more appropriate to talk about a "lame delegation" than a "lame server", because the former implies the context of a particular zone, while the latter does not. Just my $0.02. Regards, - Håvard
- [DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perform c… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Lame? - was Re: Asking TLD's to perfo… Havard Eidnes