Chained NS delegation: RFC compliant or not?

[Andreas Meile]

Dear BIND users

Recently, I would visit a web site hosted by a German company. The problem:
I can't visit it because I get a lot of

Oct 10 22:28:47 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
'foobar.de'?): [192.36.144.211].53 'H.NIC.de'
Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
'foobar.de'?): [210.81.13.179].53 'K.NIC.de'
Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
'foobar.de'?): [81.91.161.5].53 'A.NIC.de'
Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
'foobar.de'?): [193.0.0.237].53 'F.NIC.de'

in my local name server which runs as BIND named. The analysation shows the
following situation:

pingu:~ # host -t ns site-i-want-visit.de
site-i-want-visit.de name server ns2.foobar.de
site-i-want-visit.de name server ns1.foobar.de
pingu:~ # host -t ns foobar.de
foobar.de name server ns3.delegated-again.net
foobar.de name server ns.delegated-again.net
foobar.de name server ns2.delegated-again.net
pingu:~ # _

i.e. this webhoster ISP implemented a chained delegation. At my knowledge,
this violates RFC 1912, section 2.8. Could anyone agree or disagree that?

                                                    Andreas