>>Firstly, isn't this "child-centric resolver" / "parent-centric >>resolver" simply an euphemism papering over the more distinct >>"correctly" and "wrongly" implemented resolver? > > That's my thought exactly. (But that doesn't mean the terms > needn't be given definitions.)
... >>>Phantom domain: ... >> >>Again, I'd simply call a resolver allowing this situation to persist >>to be "wrong/buggy". > > In operations, you have to deal with the bad a lot - in fact, by the very > nature of the bad being bad, you deal more with the bad than the good. > (The good is hidden under automation.) Giving names to the bad is very > helpful for that reason. (Root cause voice call recordings, staff > turnover, these are places where common terminology is helpful regardless > whether the term describes something good or something bad.) Thanks, I understand and agree. - Håvard _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
