Hi George!
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson <[g...@algebras.org](mailto:On
Thu, May 4, 2023 at 20:34, George Michaelson < 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 d
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 l
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
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
Top-reply (to avoid adding to confusion by attempting to add in-line
commentary of uncertain value):
I also agree that this is very valuable and definitely helpful for
diagnostics.
I think there are a number of edge cases, for which disambiguation might be
helpful.
Apologies if this seems to add c
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
> On 5 May 2023, at 03:01, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote:
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
> The difference between observing a symptom
Hi Joe, thanks for your comments. Answers inline:
On 14:16 27/04, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf <[swo...@pir.org](mailto:On Wed,
> Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf < wrote:
>
> > This email begins a Working Group Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversi
On May 4, 2023, at 14:07, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
>> domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
>> control, and have no relationship with.
>
> If this is common, I'm abhorred.
I think these days it's less common than i
> As an example, it's quite common for people to register a
> domain and point the DNS at some nameservers which they don't
> control, and have no relationship with.
If this is common, I'm abhorred.
Having the delegating party check for service for the requested zone
at time of delegation request
> I have one last question. Regardless of whether we agree
> precisely on what "lame" means, what is the call to action when
> a zone or its name servers are declared lame?
"Get your ducks in a row!"
A domain owner is presumably normally interested in name
resolution for names in his/hers domain
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 5:07 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote:
>
> Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> configuration?
>
> The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is
> great. I say this to caution against t
On 03May23, Edward Lewis apparently wrote:
> > Was any "lame" situation defined which wasn't the result of a bad
> > configuration?
> The difference between observing a symptom and diagnosing a cause is
> great. I say this to caution against tying the "why it is" with
> "what it is."
This is a g
13 matches
Mail list logo
