IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Wed, 03 May 2023 15:59 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 E6181C1522C4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1EUTZIJXJzEg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944E7C1522AF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2023 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-VA-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.48.206]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 343Fx8to015333 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 May 2023 15:59:08 GMT
Received: from MBX112-E2-VA-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.217.41.128) by MBX112-E2-VA-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.217.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.26; Wed, 3 May 2023 11:59:06 -0400
Received: from MBX112-E2-VA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.217.41.128]) by MBX112-E2-VA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.217.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.026; Wed, 3 May 2023 11:59:06 -0400
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Mark Delany <m9p@india.emu.st>, DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
Thread-Index: AQHZfEdVMSj5aSgVMk6ohA6CQQJHHa9F5rGAgAA5uYCAApdnAA==
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 15:59:06 +0000
Message-ID: <1C10367C-B890-426F-A4F8-2D68E903ED39@icann.org>
References: <f5757414-dd3b-8a09-f945-d73cecf556a3@NLnetLabs.nl> <40C193AF-938C-418F-924E-94F4DD358164@icann.org> <20230501115805.5b4e5115@dataplane.org> <0.2.0-final-1682972681.287-0xd4930e@qmda.emu.st>
In-Reply-To: <0.2.0-final-1682972681.287-0xd4930e@qmda.emu.st>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.65.22091101
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2C87EA7A2CBCAC438A0CA43FB83A2C21@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-05-03_11,2023-05-03_01,2023-02-09_01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vfqYkuejabaCupaxbdy8JsRJlns>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] 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: Wed, 03 May 2023 15:59:14 -0000

On 5/1/23, 4:25 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of m9p@india.emu.st> wrote:

>    On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
>    > (usually due to a bad configuration)
>
>    Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?

The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is great.  I say this to caution against tying the "why it is" with "what it is."

(E.g., a lame delegation may have been set up to test software's reaction to a lame delegation, like seeing zone data mis-signed for a DNSSEC test.)

Further, prescribing a remedy, even when a symptom is identified and a diagnosis nailing the cause, can still be tricky.

In defining what the term "lame delegation" means, stick to the situation as observed, without guessing why or the fix.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email