On 07/11/2012 11:16, Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>> So it may be better if the draft uses a different term for the scenario
>>> where
>>> the parent and child do not have the same NS RRset. Perhaps that can be
>>> called a Broken Delegation? Because that's what it is....
>>
>> I've changed it from lame delegation to broken delegation.
>
> I suggest simply dropping the sentence 'If they differ, it is
> referred as a "Lame Delegation"' instead.
I agree with Chris that "Lame" has the common meaning that a server in
the NS set is not authoritative for the zone.
I would argue further that a child NS set which is a superset of the
parent is not lame, or broken. There are valid reasons to do this,
(outside the scope of this document, certainly) and I'd hate to see this
instantiated as "an RFC violation" as a side effect.
> I don't think Jim's
> suggestion of "broken delegation" is common usage for the
> particular situation of "parent and child NS RRsets differ"
> any more than "lame delegation" is, and as far as I know,
> there is no established shorthand term that refers
> specifically to this situation.
Agreed.
I would express 3.2 like this:
Both the child and the parent have a copy of the NS RRset. The child's
zone should contain each of the NS records listed in the parent, and
each of the servers in the NS RRset should be authoritative for the
zone. Modifying the NS RRset ...
--
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
