[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-dns]George's #1 (What is lame?)
On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 15:27 Canada/Eastern, Edward Lewis wrote:
I don't think we need to overload the term lame, although we have been
doing so up to now. What I'll propose is defining an unreachable
zone.
I really like the phrase "unreachable zone".
It seems much better than "lame server", since it neatly covers the
case when a nameserver is unreachable ("lame" doesn't, I don't think --
if you can't reach a server, you can't really tell whether it's lame
for the zone you're checking).
Joe
