Re: [sig-dns]George's #1 (What is lame?)

[Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>]

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