George is (of course) right. I think the following set of definitions might be useful to consider.
Lame server: older language used to describe a "lame zone server". Lame zone server: a server listed in the NS set for a zone, which is not providing authoritative answers for said zone. Partially lame domain (partially lame zone): a domain (zone) for which at least one server is a lame zone server. Completely lame domain (completely lame zone): a domain (zone) for which all of the servers are lame zone servers. Lame domain (or lame zone): a partially lame domain (partially lame zone) (Feel free to augment or substitute as needed). Brian P.S. This might be a good time to suggest alternatives for "lame", at least in this context. I.e. include "lame" but suggest the new term as a substitute. On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 5:34 PM 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 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
