Stephane, On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:23:43PM +0000, > Dan York <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 128 lines which said: > >> If it turns out to be easy to settle on something for the >> client→resolver link, it sounds like we can move on to solving the >> resolver→authoritative link without trouble. > > My concern is about qname minimization: where will it fit here? (It's > useless for the stub<->resolver communication) I would see that in the second phase of the working group's work. To Daniel's point, if the WG solves the client/resolver link, it could then continue on to resolver/authoritative ... and at that point qname minimization could enter into the picture. Dan _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
