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
