Perhaps if we inverted the logic? I realize this does broaden the fundamental definition but what if, instead of saying "gave non-authoritative response" we define lame as "failed to give an authoritatve/AA response"?
>> I continue to think that if you don't get a response, you can't tell >> whether the delegation is lame. Lameness (as I use the term) relates >> the configuration of the nameserver, not it's availability. jtk> I won't push on this any further after this, but the absence of a jtk> response happens quite a bit in my experience, and it is often a jtk> lame delegation in my view due to a problem in the delegating jtk> config or apex config (e.g., bogus or stale address specified, jtk> system removed from service but config not updated). A mention of jtk> this ambiguity, that it might be lame, might not be a bad idea to jtk> cover those cases imo. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
