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

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 dr

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

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

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

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 info

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

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: >

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

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

[DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think there is a common case where it will cause additional DNS round trips, slowing the response and increasing the number of packets and queries the servers must handle. Consider “www.host.group.department.example.com” where the company’s servers a

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

I think part of the work on qname-minimization will spend some time studying performance, as well as operational issues as Peter brought up. It could very well be that what Peter pointed out will be true and there are operational issues that could cause acceptance. But part of this work wi

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

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 th

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

If we are going there, I would want to know how common the configurations are. There is zero additional overhead for www.example.com Outside this list how common are hierarchies more than 4 levels deep in practice? This isn't a functionality issue, it's purely performance. So I suggest a 5% mi

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

there's a cart/horse proble in this thread. right now we're arguing whether to adopt it. if we adopt it then its goods and bads will become relevant. that said: > Bob Harold > Monday, October 20, 2014 2:03 PM > > I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think

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

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, O

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

On 10/20/14 2:03 PM, Bob Harold wrote: I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think there is a common case where it will cause additional DNS round trips, slowing the response and increasing the number of packets and queries the servers must handle. Consider “www.host.group.department.e

Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization

Doug Barton wrote: >> Consider “www.host.group.department.example.com > > Your analysis is correct, but only for a cold cache. Once the > resolver has cached the NS records for group.department.example.com > the penalty no longer applies. As the choice between privacy and latency is on resolver