What named logged as a lame server for a zone was what could be demonstrated to be lame (broken) from a single response when performing the resolution process (i.e. not configured to be serving the zone). It was intended to provide information to the operator of the recursive server that something was broken with the zones involved in looking up an answer to a query made to that server with the possible hope that someone would report the issue so that it could be fixed. “lame server” was never intended to exclude other ways things could be configured such that an answer from the zone was not returned.
With load balancers that needs to be extended to “not fully/correctly configured to be serving the zone”, with firewalls blocking the port “not fully/correctly configured to be effectively serving the zone”. Mark > On 5 May 2023, at 10:34, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: > > When people talk about "lame" they're in a sentence with a subject > (the DNS), and an object(ive) -But there isn't a single parse. Sorry, > but the declarative "this is what it means" seems to me to be failing, > hard. > > The subject(s) are the zone(s) that are lame? thats one case. the > other case, is the subject is the NS which is listed as authoritative > but isn't serving. OK so you can qualify "lameness" to "the zone is > lame" or "the zone has some lame NS" or "this NS is lame for the zone" > -But they have different subjects and objects. what is "this" in each > case? different. > > And not serving has (at least) two forms: you respond to 53 but reply > incoherently if at all about the zone, and you aren't even responsive > on 53. I can believe there are more. > > The objective is to fix it. You are either talking to the parent zone > delegates to get something changed in the parent zone, or to the zone > NS admin to get something changed at the NS, or to network technicians > about why something along the path isn't working for you. So thats 3 > cases at least. > > Yet, we all seem to call this "lame" for some purposes. At least 2x > who talked to, at least 2x forms, and at least 2x subjects but one > Objective: -- fix it. > > I don't think we've cohered on a meaning. I respect Paul Vixies intent > in giving clear origination of the term to Mark, but I do not agree > the term means now what he said decades ago, its clear we don't (in > this mail thread) really have a unitary meaning. If we did we wouldn't > be here. > > I don't see how a single paragraph statement without OR ... alternates > is going to cover what people patently have been saying "is lame" for > some time, not aligning to a single meaning. > > I liked the proposed paragraph because it had the ".. or not at all" > -And yet some people seem determined to say thats the "wrong" bit on > the definition. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
