On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:19 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=40verisign....@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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
