[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 (PDT)
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