[DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 27 April 2023 20:05 UTC
Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 4A4BAC15C524 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yPjp78R0enIO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dane.soverin.net (dane.soverin.net [185.233.34.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47168C14CE38 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 13:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (c04smtp-lb01.int.sover.in [10.10.4.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dane.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Q6mtt4pZbz10Nf for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:05:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [10.10.4.99]) by soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q6mtt26CJzFx for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:05:26 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1682625926; bh=MivJ6nWMQT+T6vFzNEK/dcxSf2NH5+qsTfo3VHhVO90=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=BtDvKrhk/9t/mXv/iW4TqPssh0Zt7K8CIdDLcRzGOlgrO/4n1x2QJu6Rw74w9IgUb luyETHvVkVD4NY/yvwQairJZ8dSfHiq/PPw2NiRV9dhKBIStJfYgqJLLBrwau5vCxB S8sNUxMPy+eyiOvO5W4e8ICiNrYpKsP0Es0hCg1iidWmLinTHENH6pZg6YpUzlO8XR FwmuTUCHkcoH5kJ3An1k5KG40e72vmm0+qiKfB2F6O1UMAStGArgx8ExjzQHdeS7Iq +Q2kt8S0QOy60MaRANODr86lyfWh6Exk2LKSChisOswStCiXmdi3iGmqWWSZ8Pbfwj MIJ+e8dUlR28A==
Message-ID: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 22:05:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Soverin-Authenticated: true
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ov5xsiv2uQ563W54ZO2VKXhjxhM>
Subject: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Apr 2023 20:05:33 -0000
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
- [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for la… Benno Overeinder
- Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension fo… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension fo… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Wessels, Duane
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… John Kristoff
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… libor.peltan
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Ralf Weber
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Magnus Sandberg
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Frederico A C Neves
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Wes Hardaker
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension fo… John Kristoff
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension fo… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Joe Abley
- [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [E… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extens… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Dr Eberhard W Lisse
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Dr Eberhard W Lisse
- Re: [DNSOP] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension fo… Benno Overeinder
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Havard Eidnes
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Peter Thomassen
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks Mark Elkins
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Kim Davies
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Rubens Kuhl
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re… Edward Lewis