Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Thanks again, Mark. At Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:35:22 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > And RFC 1034 also says follow the naming rules for the things you are > putting in the DNS So it does. > which people seem to want to ignore. All too often, and stubbornly. > _foo.example is not a host name

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

In message , "Niall O'Reilly" writes: > At Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:23:36 +1100, > Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > It is after 15 Jul 85. "dk" is no longer a hostname. There is > > just a node in the DNS tree with a A record attached which has no > > defined meaning. > > > > Mark > > Thanks, Mark. >

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> Niall O'Reilly > Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:39 AM > At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:15:17 -0800, > > I don't understand. > > Such a definition seems to be cheerfully violated in the case of > http://dk/ yup. and true to my words, that url will work in some places, and no

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

At Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:23:36 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > It is after 15 Jul 85. "dk" is no longer a hostname. There is > just a node in the DNS tree with a A record attached which has no > defined meaning. > > Mark Thanks, Mark. RFC 1034 (November 1987, but I'm sure you know that) uses

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

In message , "Niall O'Reilly" writes: > At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:15:17 -0800, > Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > also noting, dotless domains exist. dotless hostnames (for mail, web, > > etc) by def'n do not. > > I don't understand. > > Such a definition seems to be cheerfully violated in the case

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

At Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:15:17 -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > also noting, dotless domains exist. dotless hostnames (for mail, web, > etc) by def'n do not. I don't understand. Such a definition seems to be cheerfully violated in the case of http://dk/ Best regards, Niall O'Reilly _

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> Rubens Kuhl > Sunday, January 04, 2015 2:11 PM > > > ... > > My guess is this would even accommodate cases such as dotless domains > (like dk) and in-addr.arpa. i prefer the more aggressive approach, because caching. also noting, dotless domains exist. dotless hostname

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

> As mentioned before, there are several ways to implement qname > minimisation. Two main strategies are the aggressive one and the lazy > one. In the aggressive one, the resolver only sends NS queries as long > as it does not know the zone cuts. This is the safest, from a privacy > point of view.

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Stephane, >> While the pointer to the dns-privacy draft is helpful as a >> reference, I figure the introduction/background section should >> provide an introduction to the specific problem the draft is >> attempting to address and why it is a problem. > > I tend to disagree. The whole point of th

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:17:13AM -0800, David Conrad wrote a message of 120 lines which said: > Some comments on the qname-minimisation draft: Many of them integrated in the live text at Expect a ne

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Some comments on the qname-minimisation draft: In general, while I like the idea of qname minimization, much of this draft reads like a series of complaints about bad DNS operational practices instead of providing a detailed explanation of how to minimize the query names and what that might imp

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

As for protocol police, we need them. Deploying anything new is getting to be extremely difficult given the levels of non compliance with existing RFC. Protocols only work when both side are following the protocol. As Tim hasn't sent out a updated agenda I will draw your attention to: http://t

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Friday, October 31, 2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:28:40PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > something that is "against the rules laid out by the standard". > > "Nonconforming", then. Nonconformant or noncompliant ((as previously suggested) does not comply with

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 05:28:40PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > something that is "against the rules laid out by the standard". "Nonconforming", then. I have to agree that "illegal" is wrong. There are no DNS cops, despite what many people would like. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalr

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:17:31PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > I’d support non-standard. Not me. I may be wrong in logic or in english but to me, "non standard" means "there is no existing standard about this behaviour - either pro or con - so I can do what I

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > Paul Hoffman wrote > > Nonstandard or noncompliant. > > OK, we just have to fix RFC 6274, 6120, 5646, 5246 and dozens of other > RFC which all use "illegal" like the draft. No, we don't. They are not normative, and do not proscribe the use of language that is les

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 08:55:03AM -0700, > Paul Hoffman wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> Nonstandard or noncompliant. > > OK, we just have to fix RFC 6274, 6120, 5646, 5246 and dozens of other > RFC which all use "ille

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Oct 31, 2014, at 12:03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 08:55:03AM -0700, > Paul Hoffman wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> Nonstandard or noncompliant. > > OK, we just have to fix RFC 6274, 6120, 5646, 5246 and dozens of other > RFC which all use "illegal"

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 08:55:03AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote a message of 11 lines which said: > Nonstandard or noncompliant. OK, we just have to fix RFC 6274, 6120, 5646, 5246 and dozens of other RFC which all use "illegal" like the draft. ___ DNS

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> 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

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Yes, but… On Oct 31, 2014, at 10:20, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > On a barely related note, qname min helps with the logical progression > of the DNSSEC chain when a signed subdomain of a signed domain is > hosted on the same machine. With longest match rules a full qname > means the resolver has t

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

To clear up a few points. On Oct 31, 2014, at 7:08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:29:21PM -0400, > Edward Lewis wrote > a message of 526 lines which said: > >> This sounds like something related to work attempted in the DBound >> mail list, > > Doug Barton suggested

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Scott Rose: > > 4th paragraph: I'd suggest dropping the word "illegal" It's a > > loaded term and may not be true depending on the jurisdiction. Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > Ed Lewis did a similar remark. The idea is to have one short word for > "something which is a violation of the RFC". Any

Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:46:01PM +, Rose, Scott 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 d

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 05:02:21PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > Ed's point is not wrong, however -- in one fairly natural meaning, the > technique is actually "query maximization". If one called it "query > disclosure minimization" or something like that it

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:46:37PM +, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > Isn't "doing the minimum necessary to get the job done" pretty much > the definition of "optimization" (or, for that matter, > "efficiency")? "Minimize" means, basically, only "to make small";

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:35:28PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote a message of 7 lines which said: > the term "query minimization" appeals to me since each server, > during iteration, sees the minimum substring of the qname needed. That's why it is "qname minimisation", not "query minimisation" :-)

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 07:42:02PM +, Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote a message of 1087 lines which said: > I too have been tempted to comment on the fact that there is no > QNAME that is being "minimized" here (which would imply making it > shorter; not the gist of the proposal at all). I really

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:29:21PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote a message of 526 lines which said: > Should be DNSOP WG Boilerplate from XML2RFC. I have to read the documentation. > Because, as described this proposal would increase the number of > queries sent in search of a name. It's minimi

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:35:28PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > the term "query minimization" appeals to me since each server, during > iteration, sees the minimum substring of the qname needed. Ed's point is not wrong, however -- in one fairly natural meaning, the technique is actually "query maxim

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

- Kevin -Original Message- From: Paul Vixie [mailto:p...@redbarn.org] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:35 PM To: Darcy Kevin (FCA) Cc: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt the term "query minimization" appeals

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

the term "query minimization" appeals to me since each server, during iteration, sees the minimum substring of the qname needed. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

ery-transaction volume minimization" is a bit of a mouthful... - Kevin From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Edward Lewis Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:29 PM To: dnsop Cc: edlewis.subscri...@cox.net Subject: [DNSOP] Comm

[DNSOP] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt

Line # https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-00.txt 1 ##Network Working Group S. Bortzmeyer Should be DNSOP WG 7 ## DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy I suggest shortening the name to "DNS Query Na

[DNSOP] comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Read over the new DNSOP-titled version and have a couple of minor comments. Section 3 - 1st paragraph: I am not a lawyer, but have had to deal with them on occasion. qname minimization may or may not reduce legal responsibilities. Just because you can't do something doesn't always absolve yo