Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] QNAME minimization is bad
Paul, On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization. >> Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a >> predominant use of the DNS. > DNSBLs are one of the biggest use cases for the DNS outside of "find me the > host". They are one of the primary reasons your inbox is not drowning worse > in spam. It’s odd that you feel a need to explain DNSBLs or their uses. I’d be surprised if anyone on this list is unaware of them. Deployment of QNAME minimization had known impact on certain use cases that have been around even longer than DNSBLs but the desire for privacy overrode those concerns. As such, I’m unsure why the age of DNSBLs as a technology is relevant. >>> They work(ed) fine without minimization and I don't think it is reasonable >>> to expect every mail system in the world to change their configuration >>> to work around our performance bug. >> I thought the point of QNAME minimization was to improve privacy. > It is. Nothing in the John's proposal would reduce that, would it? John characterized QNAME minimization as a way to “work around our performance bug”, which as you know was not the prime driver for the work. I said nothing about his proposal. Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] QNAME minimization is bad
On Nov 10, 2023, at 21:41, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > > On Nov 10, 2023, at 11:55 AM, John Levine wrote: >> DNSBLs have been around a lot longer than QNAME minimization. > > Not sure that’s relevant — I presume you’re not suggesting DNSBLs are a > predominant use of the DNS. DNSBLs are one of the biggest use cases for the DNS outside of "find me the host". They are one of the primary reasons your inbox is not drowning worse in spam. >> They >> work(ed) fine without minimization and I don't think it is reasonable >> to expect every mail system in the world to change their configuration >> to work around our performance bug. > > I thought the point of QNAME minimization was to improve privacy. It is. Nothing in the John's proposal would reduce that, would it? --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] QNAME minimization is bad
On Nov 10, 2023, at 14:23, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> I'd like to write a draft that updates RFC 9156 by describing situations >> like this that caches could recognize and avoid useless churn, added to >> section 2.3 which already suggests special casing underscored labels. > > Couldn't the RBL's add an underscore in their base zone name to trigger > the special casing in 9156? That would not require a new RFC and > perhaps might not require code updates? As I understand it, John is proposing a non-normative update for one small set of queriers, which is similar to what we already have for a different set of queriers. I don't have a problem with that. And other people may have other observations on QNAMEmin that would be good to document. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
