On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a work item. Other than the author - and obviously others - I believe that the resolution algorithm of RFC 1034 is pretty clear about the QNAME being sent in full and that has been operational reality for 25+ years. A whole system has been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies. 'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query patterns evolved along that algorithm. The fact that certain services may have experimented (successfully, to them) with the proposed algorithm already gives anecdotal evidence at most, but no evidence for the absence of harm. Making the zone cut, an otherwise arbitrary boundary, a central search element, is another huge paradigm shift that I see "with great interest". Please don't anyone tell me that's the case with DNSSEC already - the story there is different. Finally, QNAME minimization is providing little gain in the traditional forward tree and already needs kludges in deeper, nested name spaces. Comparing the (little) gain with the unclear risk, I'd rather see work and energy devoted to a long term solution. -Peter _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
