Moin!
On 1 May 2023, at 18:43, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
> myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
>
> A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
> servers designated by the delegating NS r
Wes Hardaker wrote on 2023-05-01 14:57:
Paul Vixie writes:
if we need more terms let's invent. but this term has established meaning.
There I fixed it for you:
that's a meme, right?
If we need more terms let's invent. But this term has established meaning*s*.
the first use is still
Paul Vixie writes:
> if we need more terms let's invent. but this term has established meaning.
There I fixed it for you:
If we need more terms let's invent. But this term has established meaning*s*.
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
___
DNSOP mailing list
D
Joe Abley wrote on 2023-05-01 14:15:> Yes -- some people (not me) would
evidently describe a server that they
didn't receive a response from as lame. Such a situation could be a
result of a bad configuration but also any number of other things, such
as a network problem or a misconfigured fir
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany <[m...@india.emu.st](mailto:On Mon,
May 1, 2023 at 16:24, Mark Delany < wrote:
> On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
>> (usually due to a bad configuration)
>
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
Y
On 01May23, John Kristoff apparently wrote:
> (usually due to a bad configuration)
Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad configuration?
As I understand it from this discussion, all "lame" delegations require a
config change to
rectify, but not all mis-configurations i
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:55 PM libor.peltan wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> if you really ask for opinions, here is mine.
>
> Considering the recent voluminous discussion about the meaning of Lame
> delegation, it seems to me that there are at least several people being
> more-or-less sure what the term m
Hi Paul,
if you really ask for opinions, here is mine.
Considering the recent voluminous discussion about the meaning of Lame
delegation, it seems to me that there are at least several people being
more-or-less sure what the term means, with the issue that everyone
thinks something slightly (
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
Authors : Warren Kumari
Paul H
> -Original Message-
> From: DNSOP On Behalf Of Wessels, Duane
> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 12:43 PM
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: DNSOP Working Group
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension
> for lame delegation definition
>
> Caution: This email originated
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:09:23 +
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this
> thread.
I'm not particularly satisfied with the requirement that there must be
a response to meet the definition, but that seems to be the consensus
even if most seem to agre
My preferred definition is the one originally given by Paul Vixie, amended by
myself, and further amended by Peter Thomassen:
A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the child's apex NS
rrset answers non-authoritatively
For the record I agree strongly with Paul here.
Tim, as co-chair but my hat hides my hair
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:10 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this thread.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, wearing my co-author hat
>
> On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:05 PM, B
It would be grand if a bunch more people would speak up on this thread.
--Paul Hoffman, wearing my co-author hat
On Apr 27, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> The WGLC was closed for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis, and the discussion
> on lame delegation did not find conse
All
The chairs have been coming to the consensus that this document is very
close/ready for working group last call.
if there are any thoughts, reviews, etc anyone has, please share.
thanks
tim
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 5:40 AM Peter Thomassen wrote:
> Dear DNSOP,
>
> The news for this revision
Dear DNSOP,
The news for this revision are:
- editorial stuff (moved a section, fixed a ref)
- added a paragraph to Section 4.1 to emphasize that bootstrapping may not be
done without the zone owner's consent
Thanks,
Peter
On 5/1/23 11:35, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Dra
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title : Automatic DNSSEC Bootstrapping using Authenticated Signals
from the Zone's Operator
Authors
17 matches
Mail list logo
