> On 10 Jul 2024, at 9:23 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40meta....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > I see several different directions this could go that might be useful. > > 1. "DNS at the 99th percentile" > ...
> 2. "DNS Lower Limits" > > ... > 3. "DNS Intrinsic Limits" > > ... > 4. "DNS Proof of Work" > ... The 99th percentile begs to obvious question: 99% of what? Some "resolvers" handle queries for tens of millions of users (or more), some handle queries for a single user. This kind of threshold measurement runs the risk of assuming that all resolvers are "equal" in some sense when in fact they are not. I can see what you are trying to get to here Ben, but there is a non-trivial set of unanswered measurement questions behind such a proposition. We've seen in other scenarios (IPv6 minimum unfragmented packet size, for example) that lower limits are more useful than upper bounds that do not have underlying protocol constraints. Setting a minimum capability level for resolvers and saying that if the particular configuration exceeds such lower bounds of capability, then not all resolvers may cope seems (to me) to be a better way of defining such concepts. Geoff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
