Hiya,

On 12/07/2021 18:12, Tim Wicinski wrote:
The concern with lumping the root, TLDs, and SLDs into one solution is that
there are contractual issues with what can be in a zone above an SLD.

I agree that different solutions will be needed for those
three quite different kinds of zone.

Personally, I think that qname minimisation is fine for
the root for now. If we do better later, that'll be good
but oughtn't block us, particularly from experiments.

Opportunistic TLS (or better) for SLDs and below seems
doable, again for experiments.

For TLDs, I'd hope we can find some that don't have
those contractual issues and that are willing to be part
of some experiments.

And I'd hope as those experiments proceed we gain enough
experience to maybe fill in the missing parts of the puzzle.

The biggest missing part of the puzzle with the above
will be exposing the qname when querying the most commonly
used TLDs, but I think we can do useful experiments while
that's figured out. (And as you say, the figuring there
has some non-technical trickiness.)

Cheers,
S.

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to