Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-12-10 Thread Joe Abley 

On 10 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Joe Abley  wrote:

> On 7 Oct 2014, at 00:04, Tim Wicinski  wrote:
> 
>> Dear DNSOP WG,
>> 
>> After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the 
>> newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter specifically 
>> had work like this in mind.
>> 
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
> 
> Support adoption, will review/contribute (regardless of how unlikely that 
> sounds to people who have been waiting for me to come up for air for the past 
> several months).

Oh, haha, that mail was from _October_. Never mind! :-)


Joe
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-12-10 Thread Joe Abley 

On 7 Oct 2014, at 00:04, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> Dear DNSOP WG,
> 
> After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the newer 
> DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter specifically had 
> work like this in mind.
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.

Support adoption, will review/contribute (regardless of how unlikely that 
sounds to people who have been waiting for me to come up for air for the past 
several months).


Joe

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-25 Thread Tim Wicinski 


All

The call period ended earlier this week. The only outspoken nay was 
Peter Koch.  His reasons may prove to be true, as many have said.  But 
the consensus is to adopt the work, and see where it takes us.


The new version has been submitted in the document list. Based on the 
discussion, I've initially labeled the draft 'Experimental', with the 
idea that if the initial research looks promising, this can be changed. 
Actually, this can be changed if there is some larger voice on this.


thanks all
tim


On 10/7/14 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:

Dear DNSOP WG,

After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
specifically had work like this in mind.

This starts a Call for Adoption for
draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/

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.

This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59

Thanks
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Mark Andrews 

In message 
, Brian Dickson writes:
> 
>  TL;DR tidbit: IF the combined authority+resolver case (when switching
> ISP hosting companies) is not handled  by the QNAME minimization draft,
> IMHO it should consider adding it. It is a real-world problem edge-case
> seen frequently.
> 
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > > 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.
> > I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a
> > work item.
> > Other than the author - and obviously others - I believe that the
> > resolution
> > algorithm of RFC 1034 is pretty clear about the QNAME being sent in full
> > and that has been operational reality for 25+ years.  A whole system has
> > been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies.
> > 'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query patterns
> > evolved along that algorithm.  The fact that certain services may have
> > experimented
> > (successfully, to them) with the proposed algorithm already gives anecdotal
> > evidence at most, but no evidence for the absence of harm.
> > Making the zone cut, an otherwise arbitrary boundary, a central search
> > element, is another huge paradigm shift that I see "with great interest".
> > Please don't anyone tell me that's the case with DNSSEC already - the story
> > there is different.
> > Finally, QNAME minimization is providing little gain in the traditional
> > forward tree and already needs kludges in deeper, nested name spaces.
> > Comparing the (little) gain with the unclear risk, I'd rather see work and
> > energy devoted to a long term solution.
> > -Peter
> 
> 
> There are two places where there is potential impact, by definition:
> - recursive resolvers
> - authority servers
> 
> The case for recursive resolvers is plain: any QUERY below an NXDOMAIN
> can avoid querying the parental unit of the original NXDOMAIN.
> The problem being solved is DOS of recursive resolvers.
> 
> The argument implicit in Peter's message is, there is little or no gain on
> the
> authority server side.
> 
> I would like to illustrate one example case which, however rarely it occurs,
> can be made moot by QNAME minimization.
> 
> Here is an example case in bullet form, showing delegations and a change.
> 
> example.com is administered by one department, and delegates administration
> of other departments to their respective nameservers. The group that does
> the administration of example.com is a sub-department of one of the
> delegates.
> 
> Now imagine that the sub-department migrates its own zone from the shared
> nameserver of example.com, to its own separate nameserver. In doing so,
> imagine an error is made - the zone in question is not removed from the
> example.com nameserver. (It is like a lame delegation only in reverse.)

This already causes operational problems.  If QM makes the problems
*more* visible then that is a good thing.  Failing all the time is
better than failing some of the time.
 
Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Paul Vixie 
this is a +1. see below.

> Phillip Hallam-Baker 
> Monday, October 20, 2014 12:04 PM
> Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against.
>
> The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the
> original design of DNS is now defective in the light of contemporary
> privacy concerns. There is no reason that the operators of registries
> should have sight of any information they do not have a need to know.
>
> The business relationships built up over the years on the assumption
> that this data will be available and for sale to the highest bidder
> are of neither consequence nor concern.
>
> These practices are going to be insisted on regardless of choices made
> by this group. If indeed minimization has operational effects it is
> much better to document them and allow parties to avoid unintended
> consequences. At this point however, there is no evidence of harm. 
>
> Proof of very substantial showing of harm should be necessary to block
> consideration of a proposal at the outset. Opponents will after all
> have plenty of time to make objections in WG process, that being the
> point of WG process. 
>
> It would be a terrible mistake to reject this work without a hearing
> because of the mere possibility that a problem could occur. If indeed
> the state of the DNS is as fragile as is suggested it will soon
> collapse of its own accord. I rather suspect however that the fears
> are unfounded.

+1, to all observations above.

-- 
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Paul Hoffman 
On Oct 20, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Peter Koch  wrote:

>  A whole system has
> been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies.

Please say more. What are those dependencies are from a protocol point of view?

> 'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query patterns
> evolved along that algorithm.  

Please say more. Are they documented anywhere? How do they affect current 
operations?

> The fact that certain services may have experimented
> (successfully, to them) with the proposed algorithm already gives anecdotal
> evidence at most, but no evidence for the absence of harm.

This is the DNS: everything harms something else. We try to minimize known harm.

--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Brian Dickson 
 TL;DR tidbit: IF the combined authority+resolver case (when switching
ISP hosting companies) is not handled  by the QNAME minimization draft,
IMHO it should consider adding it. It is a real-world problem edge-case
seen frequently.


> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > 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.
> I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a
> work item.
> Other than the author - and obviously others - I believe that the
> resolution
> algorithm of RFC 1034 is pretty clear about the QNAME being sent in full
> and that has been operational reality for 25+ years.  A whole system has
> been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies.
> 'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query patterns
> evolved along that algorithm.  The fact that certain services may have
> experimented
> (successfully, to them) with the proposed algorithm already gives anecdotal
> evidence at most, but no evidence for the absence of harm.
> Making the zone cut, an otherwise arbitrary boundary, a central search
> element, is another huge paradigm shift that I see "with great interest".
> Please don't anyone tell me that's the case with DNSSEC already - the story
> there is different.
> Finally, QNAME minimization is providing little gain in the traditional
> forward tree and already needs kludges in deeper, nested name spaces.
> Comparing the (little) gain with the unclear risk, I'd rather see work and
> energy devoted to a long term solution.
> -Peter


There are two places where there is potential impact, by definition:
- recursive resolvers
- authority servers

The case for recursive resolvers is plain: any QUERY below an NXDOMAIN
can avoid querying the parental unit of the original NXDOMAIN.
The problem being solved is DOS of recursive resolvers.

The argument implicit in Peter's message is, there is little or no gain on
the
authority server side.

I would like to illustrate one example case which, however rarely it occurs,
can be made moot by QNAME minimization.

Here is an example case in bullet form, showing delegations and a change.

example.com is administered by one department, and delegates administration
of other departments to their respective nameservers. The group that does
the administration of example.com is a sub-department of one of the
delegates.

Now imagine that the sub-department migrates its own zone from the shared
nameserver of example.com, to its own separate nameserver. In doing so,
imagine an error is made - the zone in question is not removed from the
example.com nameserver. (It is like a lame delegation only in reverse.)

Nomenclature for the example: X:Y means server X hosts zone Y.
Before:
X:example.com -> Y:foo.example.com -> X:bar.foo.example.com
After:
X:example.com -> Y:foo.example.com -> Z:bar.foo.example.com
(but X:bar.foo.example.com still exists).

No QNAME minimization: Querying X for www.bar.foo.example.com
returns the values on X, instead of the values on Z. Admins looking
at servers Y and Z fail to see why this is occurring.

QNAME minimization: Querying X for www.bar.foo.example.com
gives delegation to Y, etc., eventually returning values from Z.
The presence of the undelegated instance on X never causes problems.

This might happen rarely in Academic institutions, but is more likely to
happen
when a ETLD registrant changes hosting providers/ISPs, and where the old
hosting provider/ISP does not follow BCP, and combines authoritative service
and resolution on the same DNS servers. Old (and now undelegated) zone
data gets served.

Brian
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker 
Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against.

The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the original
design of DNS is now defective in the light of contemporary privacy
concerns. There is no reason that the operators of registries should have
sight of any information they do not have a need to know.

The business relationships built up over the years on the assumption that
this data will be available and for sale to the highest bidder are of
neither consequence nor concern.

These practices are going to be insisted on regardless of choices made by
this group. If indeed minimization has operational effects it is much
better to document them and allow parties to avoid unintended consequences.
At this point however, there is no evidence of harm.

Proof of very substantial showing of harm should be necessary to block
consideration of a proposal at the outset. Opponents will after all have
plenty of time to make objections in WG process, that being the point of WG
process.

It would be a terrible mistake to reject this work without a hearing
because of the mere possibility that a problem could occur. If indeed the
state of the DNS is as fragile as is suggested it will soon collapse of its
own accord. I rather suspect however that the fears are unfounded.


On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:
>
>> Dear DNSOP WG,
>>
>> After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
>> newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
>> specifically had work like this in mind.
>>
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-
>> minimisation.
>>
>> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>> doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> yes
>
>
>
>> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>>
>
> 
> yes
> 
>
>
>> This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59
>>
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Peter Koch 
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> 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.

I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a work 
item.

Other than the author - and obviously others - I believe that the resolution
algorithm of RFC 1034 is pretty clear about the QNAME being sent in full
and that has been operational reality for 25+ years.  A whole system has
been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies.
'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query patterns
evolved along that algorithm.  The fact that certain services may have 
experimented
(successfully, to them) with the proposed algorithm already gives anecdotal
evidence at most, but no evidence for the absence of harm.

Making the zone cut, an otherwise arbitrary boundary, a central search
element, is another huge paradigm shift that I see "with great interest".
Please don't anyone tell me that's the case with DNSSEC already - the story
there is different.

Finally, QNAME minimization is providing little gain in the traditional
forward tree and already needs kludges in deeper, nested name spaces.

Comparing the (little) gain with the unclear risk, I'd rather see work and
energy devoted to a long term solution.

-Peter

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-20 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker 
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
> newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
> specifically had work like this in mind.
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-
> minimisation.
>
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
>
> 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.
>

yes



> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>


yes



> This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-10 Thread Warren Kumari 
On Friday, October 10, 2014, Francis Dupont 
wrote:

> +1 for adoption (and at the occasion contribute, review, implement, etc).
>
> francis.dup...@fdupont.fr 



Me too!




>
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-10 Thread Francis Dupont 
+1 for adoption (and at the occasion contribute, review, implement, etc).

francis.dup...@fdupont.fr

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Dan York 

On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski 
mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

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.

I support adoption of this draft.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

Yes, I will.

Regards,
Dan

--
Dan York
Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society
y...@isoc.org   +1-802-735-1624
Jabber: y...@jabber.isoc.org
Skype: danyork   http://twitter.com/danyork

http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Paul Wouters 

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Tim Wicinski wrote:


This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.

The draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/


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.


Yes, please adopt.


Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.


Willing to review.

Paul

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Paul Hoffman 


On Oct 6, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> 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.

Yes, it is ready for adoption by DNSOP.

> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I will.

--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Patrik Wallström 

On 07 Oct 2014, at 06:04, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> Dear DNSOP WG,
> 
> After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the newer 
> DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter specifically had 
> work like this in mind.
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
> 
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
> 
> 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.
> 
> This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59

I fully support adoption of this document.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Gilles Massen 


On 10/07/2014 06:04 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for
> draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
> 
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/

I support adoption, and am willing contribute/review.

Gilles


-- 
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-07 Thread Daniel Migault 
I support the draft. I will review/contribute.

BR,
Daniel

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson  wrote:

>
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> Done, will hold off sending edits to editor until after document adoption
> period.
> >
> > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
> Will do all above
> >
> > This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59
>
> Strong support for adoption.
>
> Olafur
>
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>



-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-06 Thread Olafur Gudmundsson 

On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski  wrote:

> 
> 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.
Done, will hold off sending edits to editor until after document adoption 
period. 
> 
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
Will do all above 
> 
> This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59

Strong support for adoption. 

Olafur


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-06 Thread David Conrad 
On Oct 6, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Paul Vixie  wrote:
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation. 
> i favour adoption. i will review, and contribute.

+1

Regards,
-drc


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-06 Thread Paul Vixie 


> Tim Wicinski 
> Monday, October 06, 2014 9:04 PM
> ...
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for
> draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
>
> 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 favour adoption. i will review, and contribute.

-- 
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

2014-10-06 Thread Tim Wicinski 

Dear DNSOP WG,

After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the 
newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter 
specifically had work like this in mind.


This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.

The draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/


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.

This call for adoption ends Monday 20-October-2014 at 23:59

Thanks
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop