> When I did inspection of "lameness" I ran across the definition > of a lame server (in a few RFCs) being a name server, named in > an NS set that responded that it was not authoritative for the > answer sought. > > I cannot say that I have ever seen a definition of a lame > delegation, just a lame server.
Well, the lameness is always in the context of a particular zone. I think the Wikipedia definition is spot on. The server itself isn't necessarily "lame" unless you qualify with a zone. Therefore I think it's more appropriate to talk about a "lame delegation" than a "lame server", because the former implies the context of a particular zone, while the latter does not. Just my $0.02. Regards, - Håvard _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
