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

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:22:36 -0800

I'm a big fan of this.

These comments are meant to be constructive, and with the goal of improving
the draft quality and/or quality of the underlying protocol.

And, of course, I speak only for myself.

In no particular order:

- In section 3, it might be good to add a paragraph about the implications
for HAMMER. Specifically, in addition to pre-fetching records that would
otherwise expire, it is probably worth probing for the introduction of zone
cuts where none previously existed (i.e. confirm their continued absence,
or discover them.)

- Another comment for Section 4 (other advantages), it may be worth
mentioning improved look-up performance for TLD operators, which offsets
the loss of query data. A 2-label QNAME query is optimal for finding the
delegation owner name in a delegation-only TLD.

- Another thing to possibly call out is the behavior of some name servers
when the QNAME is an Empty Non-Terminal, e.g. a non-zone-cut with a child,
but no RRs at the owner name. I seem to recall something along those lines
but don't recall details, e.g. which software, version, etc., has this
issue.

Hope this is helpful.

Brian Dickson