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

Edward Lewis <> Fri, 05 May 2023 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584C1C151719 for <>; Fri, 5 May 2023 12:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ot8hAQw44Xw6 for <>; Fri, 5 May 2023 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4CEC151B26 for <>; Fri, 5 May 2023 12:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTPS id 345Jfegl027461 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 May 2023 19:41:40 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.26; Fri, 5 May 2023 15:41:38 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.026; Fri, 5 May 2023 15:41:38 -0400
From: Edward Lewis <>
To: DNSOP Working Group <>
CC: Mark Delany <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
Thread-Index: AQHZfEdVMSj5aSgVMk6ohA6CQQJHHa9F5rGAgAA5uYCAApdnAIABYmgAgAIAbwA=
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 19:41:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.65.22091101
x-originating-ip: []
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
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: definitions=2023-05-05_26,2023-05-05_01,2023-02-09_01
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 19:41:47 -0000

On 5/4/23, 5:08 AM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Delany" < on behalf of> 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. __