"Wessels, Duane" <dwessels=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
> We welcome the working group's thoughts whether "lame delegation"
> encompasses these three possibilities.
FYI, when working on the EDE draft [RFC8914] we discussed lame
delegations some and actually did not document a particular error code
related to it, as the meaning both uses improperly precise terminology
("lame" is not really a useful adjective in this situation) and because
of the multiple reasons why an authoritative server may not be
responding, as you indicated.
I was originally thinking of listing the various parts of section 4 in
RFC8914 that were directly tied to the lame discussion, but I'm not sure
I'd get it right. So instead I invite you to look at section 4 of
RFC8914 and see if there is any of the situations that SSAC is concerned
about that are not covered by one of those codes that are designed to be
more specific about the actual nature of the problem being observed by a
recursive resolver.
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
