On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:04:50PM -0700,
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html
draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation is now
draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation.
Read over the new DNSOP-titled version and have a couple of minor comments.
Section 3 - 1st paragraph:
I am not a lawyer, but have had to deal with them on occasion. qname
minimization may or may not reduce legal responsibilities. Just because you
can't do something doesn't always absolve
Line # https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt
1 ##Network Working Group S.
Bortzmeyer
Should be DNSOP WG
7 ## DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy
I suggest shortening the name to DNS Query
On the subject of NTA's that should be there -
Should there be text describing auto-adding of NTA's based on important domains
(for the ISP/resolver's definition of important)? So that domains that are
used by low level services don't fail that also aren't normally visible to end
users?
the term query minimization appeals to me since each server, during
iteration, sees the minimum substring of the qname needed.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Isn't doing the minimum necessary to get the job done pretty much the
definition of optimization (or, for that matter, efficiency)? Minimize
means, basically, only to make small; whereas optimization or efficiency
means to reduce something, relative to something else, for a particular purpose
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:35:28PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
the term query minimization appeals to me since each server, during
iteration, sees the minimum substring of the qname needed.
Ed's point is not wrong, however -- in one fairly natural meaning, the
technique is actually query
On 10/23/14 5:17 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message d06e91ee.72e46%...@asgard.org, Lee Howard writes:
From: Mwendwa Kivuva kiv...@transworldafrica.com
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:23 AM
To: dnsop dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] Draft Reverse DNS in IPv6 for
Lee,
I don't see any discussion in your draft about why rDNS is needed in
this space. IME there are typically 2 uses cases:
1. Residential users, or more specifically, those who will not
be/should not be running services on their addresses
2. Commercial users, who may be running things
In message d0782276.73d89%...@asgard.org, Lee Howard writes:
On 10/23/14 5:17 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message d06e91ee.72e46%...@asgard.org, Lee Howard writes:
From: Mwendwa Kivuva kiv...@transworldafrica.com
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:23 AM
To:
On Oct 30, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
1. Residential users, or more specifically, those who will not be/should
not be running services on their addresses
This is not a value judgment the IETF should be making.
___
DNSOP
On 10/30/14 6:02 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 30, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
1. Residential users, or more specifically, those who will not be/should not
be running services on their addresses
This is not a value judgment the IETF should be making.
Of course
Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us
Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:00 PM
Of course not, but it is one that the ISP makes, and that distinction
is useful to the anti-spam folks.
IETF should not be making judgements as to what an ISP will value,
because not all ISP's behave as you
13 matches
Mail list logo
