Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 04:49:18AM -0400,
 Tim Wicinski  wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> Authors should upload a new version with the draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis 
> name.

Done (with a delay, sorry, I'm responsible).

DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy
 draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-00

Comments and remarks welcome, specially on the places marked TODO.
Current version at 

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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Tim Wicinski]

All

Thanks for all the comments on this draft.  The Call for Adoption is 
ending today but it seems that there is consensus to adopt this work in 
DNSOP and support this work.   The chairs thank everyone for the feedback.


Authors should upload a new version with the 
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis  name.


Thanks!
Tim
for all the chairs


On 7/24/18 12:32, Tim Wicinski wrote:


We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this, with
the caveat of adding more content to the section on Operational 
Considerations.



This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

The draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/


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: 9 August 2018

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-rfc7816bis

[A. Schulze]

Am 24.07.2018 um 18:32 schrieb Tim Wicinski:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

Hello WG,

I do support QNAME minimisation.

As some may know, we operate a medium size enterprise and ISP network.
There we use UNBOUND as recursive resolver. QNAME minimisation is enabled in 
relaxed mode.
We do this since more then two years (unbound 1.5.7 or so)
It's working as expected without major problems or issues.

Prior activation of that feature we designed a backup strategy for domains that 
will trigger failures.
We could "reroute" queries for problematic domains to an other resolver 
configured more relax.
This happen by manual interaction if QNAME minimisation is identified as root 
cause for a specific resolving issue.

For some months that list of "broken domain" is empty.
I see optimizations in unbound as reason for not having any trouble with QNAME 
minimisation,

Hope, that helps...
Andreas

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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Sara Dickinson]

+1 for adoption and willing to review

Sara. 

> On 25 Jul 2018, at 04:31, Davey Song(宋林健)  wrote:
> 
> +1
>  
> DNS privacy is an important issue. I support this adoption. And I’m willing 
> to review it. 
>   <>
> Davey
> 发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org ] 代表 
> Tim Wicinski
> 发送时间: 2018年7月25日 0:33
> 收件人: dnsop
> 主题: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis
>  
>  
> We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this, with
> the caveat of adding more content to the section on Operational 
> Considerations.
>  
>  
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis
>  
> The draft is available here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/ 
> 
>  
> 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: 9 August 2018
>  
> Thanks,
> tim wicinski
> DNSOP co-chair
>  
> ___
> 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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[神明達哉]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:33 AM Tim Wicinski  wrote:

>This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

>The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/

>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 support the adoption.  I'm willing to review future versions.

I have a couple of minor comments on 00:

- Regarding the first paragraph of Section 6, I've noticed RFC8198
  would have the same improvement effect.  You may or may not to
  mention it, but I'm noting it here as the draft also has a TODO
  about mentioning RFC8020 in this context.

- Also in Section 6:

   QNAME minimisation may also improve lookup performance for TLD
   operators.  For a typical TLD, delegation-only, and with delegations
   just under the TLD, a two-label QNAME query is optimal for finding
   the delegation owner name.

  It's not super obvious why it's "optimal".  Is this because it would
  be an exact match for minimized queries and the assumption is that
  an exact match is much more efficient than longest match in TLD
  server implementations?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Shumon Huque]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:08 AM manu tman  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:32 AM Tim Wicinski  wrote:
>
>>
>> We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this, with
>> the caveat of adding more content to the section on Operational
>> Considerations.
>>
>>
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis
>>
>> The draft is available here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/
>>
>
> I support adoption and will be reviewing. I would also like to see a more
> exhaustive operational considerations section.
>
> Manu
>

I also support adoption and will review.

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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Paul Ebersman]

tjw> We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this,
tjw> with the caveat of adding more content to the section on
tjw> Operational Considerations.

[...]

tjw> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
tjw> adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your
tjw> view.

I think this revision is good and agree that operational considerations
review is important, as there have been interoperability issues with
minimization and some auth servers. I can review the updated draft.

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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Petr Špaček]

On 24.7.2018 18:32, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this, with
> the caveat of adding more content to the section on Operational
> Considerations.
> 
> 
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis
> 
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/
> 
> 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: 9 August 2018

I support adoption & will review.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

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

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

[Paul Wouters]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:


We discussed this and there appears to be support to adopt this, with
the caveat of adding more content to the section on Operational Considerations.


This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis

The draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis/


I strongly support this effort and would like this work to be adopted by
the WG and will commit to contribute text and reviews.

I would like it if it would update some older core DNS RFCs to ensure
that this method of resolving becomes the preferred and default method
for recursive querying (that is, make this method a SHOULD or MUST)

Paul

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