On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:05 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:35:29AM -0400, > Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote > a message of 400 lines which said: > > > Are we standardizing on the british spelling of "minimisation" in > > preference to the americanized "minimization"? > > Bikeshedding is postponed until Working Group Last Call :-) > > ... speaking of WGLC, what is the status of this? The recent set of changes and comments all look minor - did I miss anything, or does this look close to cooked? W > > I'd prefer the simpler "The problem statement is described in ..". > > The term "exposed" in my mind carries a more sensational connotation, > > but I might be nitpicking. > > Advice from english writers here? > > > "The idea is to minimize the form of the query name sent by the > > resolver, by including only the minimum number of rightmost labels > > needed in outbound queries to authoritative servers. Additional > > labels are prepended to the query name for subsequent queries as > > responses and referrals are obtained." > > Rigorous but may be too long and convoluted? > > > > Under current practice, when a resolver receives the query > > > "What is the AAAA record for www.example.com?", it sends to the > root > > > (assuming a cold resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same > > > question. > > > > "Under current practice" implies a description of what is currently > > being done before this new resolution method is introduced. When in > > fact this paragraph is describing the new method. > > No, not at all. It describes the current practice. Under the new > (qname minimisation), the resolver would send only "com" to the root. > > > > To do such minimisation, the resolver needs to know the zone cut > > > [[54]RFC2181]. Zone cuts do not necessarily exist at every label > > > boundary. If we take the name www.foo.bar.example, it is possible > > > > This makes it sound like minimisation requires a resolver to apriori > > know the zone cuts. This is not necessarily correct. A resolver can > > learn the zone cuts in the process of adding labels and doing normal > > iterative resolution. > > Yes, it is explained later. > > > One thing this document doesn't make clear is that the algorithm > > being presented not only minimizes the query name, but also hides > > the query type until it reaches the target zone (by using the NS > > query type rather than the actual type). > > Do note the use of NS is not mandatory. See section 3, the paragraph > starting with "Another way to deal with such broken name servers" > (which you mention later) and also section 3, 1st paragraph about the > statistics of qtypes. > > > This should more precisely define which types of forwarders will get > > less data. I think you mean the forwarders upstream of the resolver > > performing qname minimization, rather than forwarders that might exist > > between the client and the minimizing resolver. > > They are not typically called forwarders (see the discussion about > draft-hoffman-dns-terminology) > > > This suggested workaround doesn't help with all forms of broken > > servers. > > Nothing deals with all the brokenness found on the Internet. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
