On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:33 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis > The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/ > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. I support the adoption. I'm willing to review future versions. I have a couple of minor comments on 00: - Regarding the first paragraph of Section 6, I've noticed RFC8198 would have the same improvement effect. You may or may not to mention it, but I'm noting it here as the draft also has a TODO about mentioning RFC8020 in this context. - Also in Section 6: QNAME minimisation may also improve lookup performance for TLD operators. For a typical TLD, delegation-only, and with delegations just under the TLD, a two-label QNAME query is optimal for finding the delegation owner name. It's not super obvious why it's "optimal". Is this because it would be an exact match for minimized queries and the assumption is that an exact match is much more efficient than longest match in TLD server implementations? -- JINMEI, Tatuya
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
