On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 9:02 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:35:29AM -0400, > > Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote > > a message of 400 lines which said: > > > >> Are we standardizing on the british spelling of "minimisation" in > >> preference to the americanized "minimization"? > > > > Bikeshedding is postponed until Working Group Last Call :-) > > Or beyond. The RFC Editor allows both types of spelling, and they will > make it consistent. > Okay, that's fair! > > > >> One thing this document doesn't make clear is that the algorithm > >> being presented not only minimizes the query name, but also hides > >> the query type until it reaches the target zone (by using the NS > >> query type rather than the actual type). > > > > Do note the use of NS is not mandatory. See section 3, the paragraph > > starting with "Another way to deal with such broken name servers" > > (which you mention later) and also section 3, 1st paragraph about the > > statistics of qtypes. > > My strong preference is that this document only deal with qname > minimization. If someone wants to extend that to qtype minimization, which > covers a different threat model, that should be done in a different > document. > I'm not yet fully decided on this, but I think I'm leaning in Paul's direction. By deferring the qtype hiding feature, we have a simpler resolution algorithm & smaller changes to existing code. And perhaps more importantly, we have easier deployability - we don't have to implement a specific set of workarounds for known problems such as authority servers not responding to NS queries, or middleboxes that don't allow them. And we save the wasted time & cycles involved in executing those workarounds. Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
