> On 12 Jul 2021, at 11:18 am, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> 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 DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop