Document Action: 'DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-09.txt)

The IESG <> Tue, 16 February 2016 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94491B3205; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:33:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-09.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.14.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:33:33 -0800
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, The IESG <>,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:33:33 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy'
  (draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-09.txt) as Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working

The IESG contact persons are Benoit Claise and Joel Jaeggli.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

This document describes a technique that can improve the privacy of DNS 
queries by a technique called "QNAME minimalisation" where the DNS 
resolver no longer sends the full and original query name to the upstream 

Working Group Summary

The document initially came up during some early discussions around DNS 
Privacy, which later spawned the DPRIVE working group.  The behavior of 
minimizing query names (or QNAMES) was not a full solution, but the Working 
Group felt that the amount of work to make QNAME minimization work was 
small, that it should be done.

Document Quality

This document was extensively commented on, discussed and approved by a 
wide breath of the working group.  There was broad consensus, and their was 
very little controversy.

There are no implementations, but several have been discussed.

There have been 2 IPR disclosures related to this document, both from the same 
company. The Working Group discussed the disclosures, and since the patent 
owners give a royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory license to all 
implementors; and this is an experimental RFC so there is still questions on 
deployment; the document could move forward.


Document Shepherd: Tim Wicinski
Area Director: Joel Jaggeli