On 19 Jul 2018, at 21:17, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > For example, Verisign has .com which is quite large. My Employer has domains > at the SLD issue that 'currently' has > 100MM records. > > Are the difference serving records vs serving delegations?
I doubt response sizes will be markedly different. Or at least not enough to matter much. What should be important is the query rate. If an authoritative server is getting thousands++ of queries per second -- most likely TLD and root servers -- what's the impact when much of that traffic goes over TLS? If I ran such a server, I'd be very reluctant to switch on DNS over TLS (or DOH or whatever). And even less likely to do that if this WG starts from a problem statement which excludes my PoV. Some TLD operators may well be less clueful than others. However as Scott said sticking to the technical issues should mean the WG gets a more complete picture of the use cases. An important constituency didn't engage in the development of DNSSEC-bis, refused to deploy it and that's why we got DNSSEC-ter. OK, that's an over-simplification. But it shows what might happen in this WG if some use cases and requirements get overlooked. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
