Hello everyone, Paul Hoffman: > We're still not done yet. I took a hiatus from finishing the list of > definitions that people wanted more scrutiny on, but will start that > again soon. I hope we'll be done with that list by mid-April and then be > ready for WG last call.
I noticed that the latest version of the terminology draft includes lame delegation. I ask because my understanding is that there are several flavors of lame delegation, at least informally. I believe Ed Lewis spent some time thinking about this long ago when he was updating ARIN's lame delegation processes. IIRC the main distinction is between a single NS being lame and all NS being lame. So you can have a lame server (a single NS) or a lame delegation (all NS). There may be further details with lameness above and below the zone cut, or lameness caused by A/AAAA lookups failing on the NS or lameness caused by the servers not responding. I don't know if this is documented anywhere so that it can be referenced properly, sorry. I am happy to discuss further but I think this basically covers all I know. I don't mind proposing text, but probably someone (Ed maybe?) would be a better person. Cheers, -- Shane _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
