Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 17 July 2018 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 4ECC0130E2C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 WNs2cmoCgiSg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F4161129C6B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41VYTp0YmqzpD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:35:10 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1531863310; bh=IUD9gn6vKLgq6WNEh5QighoJ0i+N8ElFfAnm1nh7aF4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=vGSNo2NKHY6kUQknJzuyKvn7FjO07XmWwzrlSR06HdqpY/AloHLZERsR/oII26kgG RB/pxpBXJ5yTt5/KcAqhHfFo9NgO5VwYhMcqjXjVFvHDJcOw7uOiH0JxatK4NIg3aY KhnM6zFja65jhIhPzg9eV+BmRcRnY+B5EaUFGL94=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwrHCHwjE99x for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:35:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:35:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CF9BD31C855; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca CF9BD31C855
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35414009E68 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0E1026DD-2304-43FE-BEED-B9CE2981D9E3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1807171724540.3719@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20180717121406.GA6681@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <0E1026DD-2304-43FE-BEED-B9CE2981D9E3@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wEa8n-dXkys1KaW1iWNdUb2tPWc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:35:16 -0000

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, tjw ietf wrote:

> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?
> 
> I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section.

That would be good indeed. Especially with respect to broken DNS load
balancers.

I have enabled it in Fedora from the start and did run into a few problem
domains, and some people turning it off. But that happened less than I
had expected. Red Hat did not yet enable this in RHEL7 but it is planned
to be enabled in RHEL8.

But I do believe qname minimisation is an important privacy enhancing
technology that we should strongly promote as a standards track
document.

Paul