> With the DNSOP interim meeting last June, we reworded the definition
> of "lame delegation". This new definition of "lame delegation" has
> been shared on the mailing list and included by the document authors
> in the latest revision of the rfc8499bis draft,
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-08.
Yes, I noticed that earlier suggestion, and at the time I did not
raise my voice (or use my keyboard...).
That doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. What was the specific
reasons given at the DNSOP interim meeting in June (where I did
not attend)? Any notes to share?
It is my humble opinion that the definition of "lame delegation"
from rfc1912 is "fine", and is consistent with what I perceive to
be the correct use of the term: A delegation to a name server
which does not serve the zone in question.
I also concur with the others who have commented on this part:
it should be considered historic, and avoided in favor of
terms that are specific and clear.
that this is sort of a "cop-out", in that the document doesn't
actually suggest "terms that are specific and clear" to be used
in preference. As such, I suspect this suggestion will be quite
ineffective in eradicating the term's use. Old habits die hard,
especially when no "specific and clear" alternatives are
presented.
Best regards,
- Håvard
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
