I think Paul’s definition is good and matches the way I think of a lame
delegation.
My one quibble would be with the ending part that says “that zone is said to
have…” This is somewhat confusing because the definition combines both a
parent-child delegation and an apex/self delegation. If we’
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 01:39:21PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> Perhaps:
>
> "A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
> servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset
> answers non-authoritatively for a zone".
This is a decent definition of the
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 15:39, Wessels, Duane
wrote:
> Perhaps:
>
> “A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative servers
> designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset answers
> non-authoritatively for a zone”.
I like this.
Joe
>___
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:39:21 +
"Wessels, Duane" wrote:
> “A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
> servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset
> answers non-authoritatively for a zone”.
Perhaps, say "does not answer authoritatively for a z
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 16:30, John Kristoff wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:39:21 +
> "Wessels, Duane" wrote:
>
>> “A lame delegation is said to exist when one or more authoritative
>> servers designated by the delegating NS rrset or by the apex NS rrset
>> answers non-authoritatively for a
On 07/04/2023 06.12, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker wrote:
Question: Are the .local and .onion part of the Special-use domain names
registered in IANA?
They do appear in the registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domain-names.xhtml
___
On Apr 6, 2023, at 9:12 PM, Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
wrote:
> This draft is to reserve .alt as the Special-Use Domain Names. Section 1 says
> that the technique is to address problems discussed in RFC8244. After reading
> the RFC8244, I learned RFC8244 covers many more problems, not just the
On Mar 28, 2023, at 9:27 AM, Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker
wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> a) I managed to find in this well written document one typo:
>
> Section 6
>
> we would like to
> sincerely apolgized for anyone who we forgot to credit
>
> apologize
Thanks; fixed.
> b) Lack o
Vladimir,
Thank you very much.
Linda
From: Vladimír Čunát
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
sec...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-22
On 07/04/2
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
Wessels, Duane wrote on 2023-04-10 06:39:
I think Paul’s definition is good and matches the way I think of a lame
delegation.
My one quibble would be with the ending part that says “that zone is said to
have…” This is somewhat confusing because the definition combines both a
parent-child de
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 14:35:36 +
Joe Abley wrote:
> I continue to think that if you don't get a response, you can't tell
> whether the delegation is lame. Lameness (as I use the term) relates
> the configuration of the nameserver, not it's availability.
>
> So I prefer Duane's formulation to y
Perhaps if we inverted the logic? I realize this does broaden the
fundamental definition but what if, instead of saying "gave
non-authoritative response" we define lame as "failed to give an
authoritatve/AA response"?
>> I continue to think that if you don't get a response, you can't tell
>> wheth
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:36 -0600
Paul Ebersman wrote:
> Perhaps if we inverted the logic? I realize this does broaden the
> fundamental definition but what if, instead of saying "gave
> non-authoritative response" we define lame as "failed to give an
> authoritatve/AA response"?
Isn't that wha
>> Perhaps if we inverted the logic? I realize this does broaden the
>> fundamental definition but what if, instead of saying "gave
>> non-authoritative response" we define lame as "failed to give an
>> authoritatve/AA response"?
jtk> Isn't that what I originally suggested and Joe disagreed with?
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 02:35:36PM +, Joe Abley wrote:
> I continue to think that if you don't get a response, you can't tell
> whether the delegation is lame. Lameness (as I use the term) relates the
> configuration of the nameserver, not it's availability.
>
> So I prefer Duane's formulation
Under this issue is a discussion on the meaning of “lame delegation” but I see
a focus on quality of individual name servers (in relation a certain zone).
Delegation is an entity consisting of a set of name servers and, in some cases,
glue address records. One part of the delegation is to provid
mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name
mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path
mats> to the child zone content is not available.
mats> For individual name servers it could be meaningful that say that
mats> it is a *lame name server* in
mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name
mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path
mats> to the child zone content is not available.
mats> For individual name servers it could be meaningful that say that
mats> it is a *lame name server* in
19 matches
Mail list logo
