I think Paul’s definition is good and matches the way I think of a lame delegation.
My one quibble would be with the ending part that says “that zone is said to have…” This is somewhat confusing because the definition combines both a parent-child delegation and an apex/self delegation. If we’re talking about a name server in the delegation from com to example.com, I’m not sure it is correct to say that the example.com zone has the lame delegation. Perhaps: “A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset answers non-authoritatively for a zone”. DW > On Apr 9, 2023, at 12:31 AM, paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org wrote: > > > "If one or more authoritative servers designated by the delegating NS rrset > or by the apex NS rrset answers non-authoritatively for a zone, that zone is > said to have a lame delegation." > > p vixie > > On Apr 9, 2023 04:13, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > I have been on vacation this week and am just seeing this thread now. Now > that a bunch of people have spoken up on the topic, if someone wants to > propose a *specific* change to the definition in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, > this would be a very good time to do it, given that we are after WG Last Call > but waiting for AD writeup. Otherwise, the current wording will be used for > IETF Last Call. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
