IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New version of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis after WG last call

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 20 April 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 513BB3A09AB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 4FjRMIZ2rbQa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (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 B66CA3A0977 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13KIjGFF024516 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:45:17 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:45:15 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:45:15 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] New version of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis after WG last call
Thread-Index: AQHXMk0x71kOSNWvaEWNAQdaILB+Waq8PSiAgAH+MIA=
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:45:15 +0000
Message-ID: <B33FC055-883A-4892-91AE-4D2A6FABCCA7@icann.org>
References: <0053F712-2701-42E0-9B7C-8B3A0757210C@icann.org> <2cb48d1541e8489fa07dd9c01731ec25@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <2cb48d1541e8489fa07dd9c01731ec25@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_259DE46E-BBDC-4FFA-9B3C-4C4D81748FEC"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-20_08:2021-04-20, 2021-04-20 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wt1BzInw9FlprlHhAsu_ocgu4OY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New version of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis after WG last call
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 20 Apr 2021 18:45:32 -0000

On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:19 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the update! I have a few minor suggestions after re-reading the draft.
> 
> Section 1.1: "Academic research has been performed on QNAME minimisation [devries-qnamemin].  This work shows that QNAME minimisation in relaxed mode causes almost no problems." It would be helpful to note the issues that the paper described, perhaps as follows:
> 
> "This work shows that QNAME minimisation in relaxed made causes almost no problems; some of the issues that have been observed are described in Section 5."
> 
> Section 5: It's worth noting the performance issues reported in [devries-qnamemin]. Suggestion:
> 
> OLD:
> QNAME minimisation can increase the number of queries based on the incoming QNAME.  This is described in Section 2.3.
> 
> NEW:
> QNAME minimisation can increase the number of queries based on the incoming QNAME.  This is described in Section 2.3. As described in [devries-qnamemin], QNAME minimisation in strict mode both increases the number of DNS lookups by up to 26% and leads to up to 5% more failed lookups. The full cache in a production resolver will soften that overhead.

This seems fine; thanks! We'll add it to the next draft.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email