OK, I'll chat with Brian since he's in charge of sending those emails for now, and go there.
Tim On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
