Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)

[Ladislav Vobr]

Mark.Andrews at isc.org wrote:
>>>>>	They are all lame delegations.
>>>>
>>>>hmm but for some reasons, isc bind lame-ttl option has a different 
>>>>opinion, and considers server to be lame only in the first case :-(,
>>>
>>>
>>>	Well the second case you can't tell the difference between
>>>	that and a nameserver that is down which is how it is
>>>	treated.
>>
>>do i really need to know?, what is the point using incredible system 
>>resources of a bind recursive server, just to follow up with servers, 
>>which are apperantly down, and everybody except the bind itself has 
>>figured it out.
> 
> 
> 	Named penalises the rtt estimates of nameservers that are down.

but it doesn't stop bind to use them and use them and use them again and 
again, if there is no better choice, thus causing very interesting 
moments for many recursive server administrators? Is it really bad idea 
to have lame-ttl covering the second and case as well, if we all agree 
this is lame as well.

Ladislav