* Florian Weimer: > There is another privacy-enhancing approach that is not mentioned in > the draft: defensive delegations. For example, with current resolver > behavior, the lack of a delegation for 1.E164.ARPA means that queries > under that tree are sent to the E164.ARPA servers, which are scattered > around the globe. With a delegation, the delegation would be cached > and queries could be kept locally in the region.
And another one: If you make your queries against a local copy of the DNS tree (which has been made irrespective of future demand), then nobody else will now which DNS records you are intersted in. This approach obviously weighs query privacy over database protection (whether as someone's intellectual property or with regards to domain owner privacy). _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
