Re: [DNSOP] DNS privacy : now at least two drafts

[Florian Weimer <[e-mail]>]

* Stephane Bortzmeyer:

> I just posted a new version of the DNS privacy draft,
> draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy-01. The most important difference
> is that it is now split in two, one pure problem statement,
> draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy and an exploration of possible
> solutions, draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-privacy-sol. The first one seems to
> me (and to the AD) well adapted to dnsop. The second one mixes
> solutions that may be in the realm of dnsop (such as qname
> minimization) and solutions that would require a new WG (such as
> encryption of DNS traffic).

The -sol draft mentions QNAME minimization without defining the term.
Is this about sending only as many labels as required to obtain a
delegation from an authoritative server?

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.