>> Note that Scott's current EPP draft is still using this term, >> citing the definition in 1912. Should the term be removed >> from Scott's draft, or acknowledged that it is now historic? >> If Scott replaces it with another more precise term, can we >> get that term in this document so that future uses can cite >> this document? > > [SAH] My draft uses the term in only one place where it describes > practices that can "introduce risks of lame delegation". I'm > inclined to change that sentence to something like "introduce risks > of invalid DNS delegation" to avoid the term completely if it > eliminates the need for a normative reference that doesn't yet > exist.
Don't take this the wrong way -- I'm not picking on you presonally... But I think this illustrates one of the problems with coming up with "specific and clear" alternatives to the "lame delegation" characterization which is also brief, precise, and doesn't have too wide difference to normal-language usage. Because... Even though my first language is not English, I would have thought that it ought to be possible to distinguish between a "valid" and an "invalid" delegation without querying for the actual current operational state wrt. to the given zone, i.e. there has to be some evident "rule violation" involved. Quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary: invalid : not valid: a : being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law | an invalid assumption | declared the will invalid b : logically inconsequent The most relevant part here would be "without foundation in ... law", if we consider the RFCs "law" within this area, which isn't too far- fetched. E.g. it would IMHO be "invalid" to use an NS record with a name server name which contains "_" in its name, because there is at least a deep- seated convention (if not a rule from ... rfc 952?) that host names, i.e. names which resolve to A and/or AAAA records (and therefore, by extension, name server names), should not contain "_" in their owner name (by default enforced by BIND to this day, when loading an authoritative zone), i.e. "it explicitly goes against the rules". (And, yes, I know that not everyone agrees with this rule...) I would claim the flavour is distinctly different, and that "invalid delegation" is not a good substitute for "lame delegation". Regards, - Håvard _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
