Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:22:40 -0700

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies a technique to increase privacy in unencrypted DNS
traffic by not specifying a full domain name to the upstream name server.

The security considerations section does exist and does relent that encryption
would be a better form of privacy, but would require more coordination.  The
section also discloses that this protocol does not help in the case of
recursive resolvers.  I believe that the draft sufficiently describes the
limitations of the QNAME minimization method as specified.

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

Should QNAME be initially expanded/defined?
s/therefore do not give/therefore not give/
s/improving performances/improving performance/

Shawn.
--

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 13:41:03 +0100

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 12:22:40AM -0700,
 Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> I believe that the draft sufficiently describes the limitations of
> the QNAME minimization method as specified.

Thanks for the review.

> Should QNAME be initially expanded/defined?

I do not tkink so, since it is standard DNS terminology (RFC 1034,
section 3.7.1).

Other editorial comments have been integrated in my local copy.