mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path mats> to the child zone content is not available.
mats> For individual name servers it could be meaningful that say that mats> it is a *lame name server* in relation to a certain zone. I like this distinction. Agree that calling just one server not working is a lame name server. Still want better clarity for lame delegation on if we really care why we aren't getting auth/AA responses from at least one nameserver. If no listed nameserver gives auth/AA, I'd call that a clear criteria for lame delegation, regardless of the underlying reason, at least as far as a recursive server should care. Humans debugging may care but I don't see a "better" definition of lame server really informs that debugging process. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
