I am with Victor on the use of RECOMMENDED. On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:01 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:54:37PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > Viktor is suggesting that QNAME Minimization should be stopped when > > you run into an underscore ("_") label, instead of this being worded > > as a potential, optional mechanism. > > > > Obviously there is a tradeoff here -- privacy vs deployment. > > 1: while it's **possible** that there is a delegation point at the > > underscore label, (IMO) it is unlikely. If there is no delegation, you > > will simply be coming back to the same server again and again, and so > > you are not leaking privacy sensitive information. > > > > 2: some recursives are less likely to enable QNAME minimization > > because of the non-zero ENT and slight performance issues. > > > > What does the WG think? Does the privacy win of getting this deployed > > and enabled sooner outweigh the potential small leak if there *is* a > > delegation inside the _ territory of the name? > > > > Should the advice above be strengthened to SHOULD / RECOMMENDED? > > Thanks, Indeed I'm arguing for RECOMMENDED (synonymous with SHOULD IIRC, > but sounds less intrasigent). > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > 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