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

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

On 5/4/23, 5:08 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>    I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree precisely on what "lame" means,
>    what is the call to action when a zone or its name servers are declared lame?
>
>    And how is that different from any other form of miscreant auth behaviour such as
>    inconsistency?

At the time when I was working on lame delegations, I had a specific purpose - identify where in the name tree "upwards referrals" were being sent.  At the time, there was some importance to this, I presented at a number of conferences and was dubbed "Mr. Lame" for a while.  But the importance of this faded quickly as the buggy implementations mishandling upwards referrals were fixed.  That's about it - and my 15 minutes of lame fame.

>    I mean if "lame" is a precious historical term that warrants considered clarification,
>    surely it has a very specific value that we can all act on, right? So what is that
>    very specific value?

I'll agree that it seems odd that the term "lame delegation" is getting a lot of attention now.  In the scheme of things, it's just one more arcane element in the DNS landscape, a landscape littered by misnomers, archaic-references, multiple-meaning terms, and things that aren't "things" anymore.

I do think that consistency is important so long as there are old RFC documents and other materials laying around.  If a term takes on a new meaning that is fine, but a reader trawling through the Internet Engineering Notes or RFCs with only 1, 2, or 3-digit numbers, ought to be able to make sense of the old words.  It's not the sacredness of the old terms, but the need to still be able to read the documents.  Outside of that, I'm a bit surprised that I'm bothering to spend any time typing about lameness anymore. __