On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:46:01PM +0000,
Rose, Scott <scott.r...@nist.gov> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> I am not a lawyer, but have had to deal with them on occasion.
> qname minimization may or may not reduce legal responsibilities.
Right. IANAL too, so text changed for something milder ("it may
decrease their legal responsability" which is true in Europe).
> 4th paragraph: I'd suggest dropping the word "illegal" It's a
> loaded term and may not be true depending on the jurisdiction.
Ed Lewis did a similar remark. The idea is to have one short word for
"something which is a violation of the RFC". Any idea for a better
word, less legally loaded?
> Their is also a (small) performance hit for DANE aware applications
> where the owner name often has multiple labels. Might want to
> mention it as well. One way to reduce the time would be to not do
> minimization for certain qtypes (like TLSA, OPENPGPKEY, etc.).
First, we should remember (it is not crystal-clear in the current
draft) that qname m12n is an unilateral change (it does not change the
protocol) so resolver implementers may do it in slightly different
ways. That being said, not doing minimisation for some qtypes seem to
be an overoptimisation, not worth the complexity. Also, OPENPGPKEY is
a bad example because it is a case where there is PII even after the
second label so Qname m12n is *more* important for this type.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
