> On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The current text is sufficient to tell resolver developers, and resolver
> operators, why they should even think about underscore labels when they
> create a QNAME minimisation strategy. Elevating such a strategy to a SHOULD
> as a work-around for broken middleboxes that might (hopefully!) be fixed in
> the future seems like a very wrong direction for the WG.
If this were just a work-around for breakage, I'd be more inclined
to agree, but it is also a solid opportunity to improve performance,
because privacy-relevant changes of administrative control across
special-use labels should be very rare to non-existent.
So short-circuiting qname minimisation when a special-use label is
encountered seems like a win-win.
Measuring qname
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
