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

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

George is (of course) right.

I think the following set of definitions might be useful to consider.

Lame server: older language used to describe a "lame zone server".
Lame zone server: a server listed in the NS set for a zone, which is not
providing authoritative answers for said zone.
Partially lame domain (partially lame zone): a domain (zone) for which at
least one server is a lame zone server.
Completely lame domain (completely lame zone): a domain (zone) for which
all of the servers are lame zone servers.
Lame domain (or lame zone): a partially lame domain (partially lame zone)

(Feel free to augment or substitute as needed).

Brian
P.S. This might be a good time to suggest alternatives for "lame", at least
in this context. I.e. include "lame" but suggest the new term as a
substitute.


On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 5:34 PM George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject
> (the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry,
> but the declarative "this is what it means" seems to me to be failing,
> hard.
>
> The subject(s) are the zone(s) that are lame? thats one case. the
> other case, is the subject is the NS which is listed as authoritative
> but isn't serving. OK so you can qualify "lameness" to "the zone is
> lame" or "the zone has some lame NS" or "this NS is lame for the zone"
> -But they have different subjects and objects. what is "this" in each
> case? different.
>
> And not serving has (at least) two forms: you respond to 53 but reply
> incoherently if at all about the zone, and you aren't even responsive
> on 53. I can believe there are more.
>
> The objective is to fix it. You are either talking to the parent zone
> delegates to get something changed in the parent zone, or to the zone
> NS admin to get something changed at the NS, or to network technicians
> about why something along the path isn't working for you. So thats 3
> cases at least.
>
> Yet, we all seem to call this "lame" for some purposes. At least 2x
> who talked to, at least 2x forms, and at least 2x subjects but one
> Objective: -- fix it.
>
> I don't think we've cohered on a meaning. I respect Paul Vixies intent
> in giving clear origination of the term to Mark, but I do not agree
> the term means now what he said decades ago, its clear we don't (in
> this mail thread) really have a unitary meaning. If we did we wouldn't
> be here.
>
> I don't see how a single paragraph statement without OR ... alternates
> is going to cover what people patently have been saying "is lame" for
> some time, not aligning to a single meaning.
>
> I liked the proposed paragraph because it had the ".. or not at all"
> -And yet some people seem determined to say thats the "wrong" bit on
> the definition.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>