[DNSOP] [Errata Verified] RFC7816 (4644)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:58 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2D0129466; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TO0ob_1Rc1sc; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C32512940E; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C5580B8110C; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: edmonds@mycre.ws, bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: joelja@bogus.com, iesg@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20170329165805.C5580B8110C@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:58:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nhXFQx5AV600LTBCyFI4uzOZQU8>
Subject: [DNSOP] [Errata Verified] RFC7816 (4644)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:58:18 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7816, "DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7816&eid=4644 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws> Date Reported: 2016-03-24 Verified by: Joel Jaeggli (IESG) Section: 6 Original Text ------------- QNAME minimisation can decrease performance in some cases -- for instance, for a deep domain name (like www.host.group.department.example.com, where host.group.department.example.com is hosted on example.com's name servers). Let's assume a resolver that knows only the name servers of .example. Without QNAME minimisation, it would send these .example name servers a query for www.host.group.department.example.com and immediately get a specific referral or an answer, without the need for more queries to probe for the zone cut. For such a name, a cold resolver with QNAME minimisation will, depending on how QNAME minimisation is implemented, send more queries, one per label. Once the cache is warm, there will be no difference with a traditional resolver. Actual testing is described in [Huque-QNAME-Min]. Such deep domains are especially common under ip6.arpa. Corrected Text -------------- QNAME minimisation can decrease performance in some cases -- for instance, for a deep domain name (like www.host.group.department.example.com, where host.group.department.example.com is hosted on example.com's name servers). Let's assume a resolver that knows only the name servers of .example.com. Without QNAME minimisation, it would send these .example.com name servers a query for www.host.group.department.example.com and immediately get a specific referral or an answer, without the need for more queries to probe for the zone cut. For such a name, a cold resolver with QNAME minimisation will, depending on how QNAME minimisation is implemented, send more queries, one per label. Once the cache is warm, there will be no difference with a traditional resolver. Actual testing is described in [Huque-QNAME-Min]. Such deep domains are especially common under ip6.arpa. Notes ----- Changed ".example" to ".example.com". -------------------------------------- RFC7816 (draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-09) -------------------------------------- Title : DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy Publication Date : March 2016 Author(s) : S. Bortzmeyer Category : EXPERIMENTAL Source : Domain Name System Operations Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [DNSOP] [Errata Verified] RFC7816 (4644) RFC Errata System