On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:29:21PM -0400, Edward Lewis <edlewis.subscri...@cox.net> wrote a message of 526 lines which said:
> Should be DNSOP WG Boilerplate from XML2RFC. I have to read the documentation. > Because, as described this proposal would increase the number of > queries sent in search of a name. It's minimisation of the data sent. And, in most cases, there would be no increase of the query numbers. > I don't know that the amount of "privacy problems" is something > DNSOP is suited to address. There have been a lot of hesitation after Vancouver on where to put this work (DNSOP, Perpass, a new WG). In the end, it is DNSOP (there have been a call for adoption by dnsop, with only one opposition expressed) so, in my opinion, the case is closed (I'm not really interested in IETF's internal endless process debates). > This sounds like something related to work attempted in the DBound > mail list, Not at all. Dbound (or Mozilla's public suffix list) rely on a priori knowledge (which can be stale) while Qname m12n relies on dynamically learning. But, more important, Dbound is for finding out the _administrative_ boundaries while Qname m12n depend on _technical_ boundaries. For Dbound, the fact that www.ratp.fr is below a zone cut and not in the same zone than ratp.fr is irrelevant (it's the same organisation). For Qname m12n, it is crucial. Doug Barton suggested here to use Dbound-like techniques to optimize the work of a qname-minimising resolver. I personally don't think this small improvment would be worth the added complication and risks of staleness. > Effectively, yes, not a requirement, but more than a tradition. May be it's my low level in english but, for me, "tradition" did not mean that it was irrational or without basis. You say that there were very good practical reasons for sending the full Qname and I agree. If we continue to do so while these reasons are no longer there (root name servers don't serve .com anymore...), it is tradition. > The SOA is "just a convention" too (in negative answers) and if the > zone does not make use of NOTIFY/AXFR/IXFR, the SOA serial number > doesn't matter either. You say that not sending a SOA (when requested) is legal? > (Once again - illegal practice?) Do you prefer a term less legalese? "Violation of the RFC"? > 292 ##Appendix A. An algorithm to find the zone cut > > It's not the zone cut that matters, it's what zones the server > answers that matters. I disagree. When you want to resolve www.example.com with Qname m12n, knowing that example.com and com are on different sides of a zone cut is necessary. Knowing that the .com name servers also serve .net is useless. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
