Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> writes: > The term "lame delegation" is defined in two RFCs, which are > referenced in the terminology draft. This has caused the term to be > commonly used.
I'm not saying that some people don't understand it. It's just a weird english choice that we're sticking with because of history. I think if it had been re-named "broken delegation" and *that* was commonly used there would be less confusion, even though it's only a single word change. Operators do not go looking into RFCs when their log messages spit out some strange wording choices. But... I've said my voice, so feel free to reply but I tend not to follow up unless I have new things to add (and I doubt I will further). -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
