[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 7816) 00 draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis

Network Working Group                                      S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft                                                     AFNIC
Obsoletes: 7816 (if approved)                                 P. Hoffman
Intended status: Standards Track                                   ICANN
Expires: January 18, 2019                                  July 17, 2018


             DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy
                     draft-bortzmeyer-rfc7816bis-00

Abstract

   This document describes a technique to improve DNS privacy, a
   technique called "QNAME minimisation", where the DNS resolver no
   longer sends the full original QNAME to the upstream name server.

   RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION.  The original [RFC7816]
   had the experimental status.  This document is intended for the
   standards track.  It should be discussed in the IETF DNSOP (DNS
   Operations) Working Group, through its mailing list.  The source of
   the document, as well as a list of open issues, is currently kept at
   Framagit [1].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  QNAME Minimisation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Possible Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Protocol and Compatibility Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Results of the Experimentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE
       PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  An Algorithm to Perform QNAME Minimisation . . . . .  10
   Appendix B.  Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Changes from RFC 7816 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction and Background

   The problem statement is described in
   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dprive-rfc7626-bis].  The terminology ("QNAME",
   "resolver", etc.) is defined in [I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis].
   This specific solution is not intended to fully solve the DNS privacy
   problem; instead, it should be viewed as one tool amongst many.

   QNAME minimisation follows the principle explained in Section 6.1 of
   [RFC6973]: the less data you send out, the fewer privacy problems
   you have.

   Before QNAME minimisation, when a resolver received the query "What
   is the AAAA record for www.example.com?", it sent to the root
   (assuming a cold resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same
   question.  Sending the full QNAME to the authoritative name server
   was a tradition, not a protocol requirement.  In a conversation with
   the author in January 2015, Paul Mockapetris explained that this
   tradition comes from a desire to optimise the number of requests,



Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   when the same name server is authoritative for many zones in a given
   name (something that was more common in the old days, where the same
   name servers served .com and the root) or when the same name server
   is both recursive and authoritative (something that is strongly
   discouraged now).  Whatever the merits of this choice at this time,
   the DNS is quite different now.

2.  QNAME Minimisation

   The idea is to minimise the amount of data sent from the DNS resolver
   to the authoritative name server.  In the example in the previous
   section, sending "What are the NS records for .com?" would have been
   sufficient (since it will be the answer from the root anyway).  The
   rest of this section describes the recommended way to do QNAME
   minimisation -- the way that maximises privacy benefits (other
   alternatives are discussed in the appendices).

   Instead of sending the full QNAME and the original QTYPE upstream, a
   resolver that implements QNAME minimisation and does not already have
   the answer in its cache sends a request to the name server
   authoritative for the closest known ancestor of the original QNAME.
   The request is done with:

   o  the QTYPE NS

   o  the QNAME that is the original QNAME, stripped to just one label
      more than the zone for which the server is authoritative

   For example, a resolver receives a request to resolve
   foo.bar.baz.example.  Let's assume that it already knows that
   ns1.nic.example is authoritative for .example and the resolver does
   not know a more specific authoritative name server.  It will send the
   query QTYPE=NS,QNAME=baz.example to ns1.nic.example.

   The minimising resolver works perfectly when it knows the zone cut
   (zone cuts are described in Section 6 of [RFC2181]).  But zone cuts
   do not necessarily exist at every label boundary.  If we take the
   name www.foo.bar.example, it is possible that there is a zone cut
   between "foo" and "bar" but not between "bar" and "example".  So,
   assuming that the resolver already knows the name servers of
   .example, when it receives the query "What is the AAAA record of
   www.foo.bar.example?", it does not always know where the zone cut
   will be.  To find the zone cut, it will query the .example
   name servers for the NS records for bar.example.  It will get a
   NODATA response, indicating that there is no zone cut at that point,
   so it has to query the .example name servers again with one more
   label, and so on.  (Appendix A describes this algorithm in deeper
   detail.)



Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   Here are more detailed examples of queries with QNAME minimisation:

   www.isc.org, cold cache, aggressive algorithm:

   QTYPE   QNAME           TARGET                 NOTE
   NS      org             root nameserver
   NS      isc.org         Afilias nameserver
   NS      www.isc.org     ISC nameserver         "www" may be delegated
   A       www.isc.org     ISC nameserver

   www.isc.org, cold cache, lazy algorithm (for a cold cache, it is the
   same algorithm as now):

   QTYPE   QNAME           TARGET                 NOTE
   A       www.isc.org     root nameserver
   A       www.isc.org     Afilias nameserver
   A       www.isc.org     ISC nameserver

   www.isc.org, warm cache (all NS RRsets are known), both algorithms:

   QTYPE   QNAME           TARGET                 NOTE
   A       www.isc.org     ISC nameserver

   www.example.org, warm cache (but for isc.org only, example.org's
   NS RRset is not known), aggressive algorithm

   QTYPE   QNAME               TARGET             NOTE
   NS      example.org      Afilias nameserver
   NS      www.example.org  Example nameserver
   A       www.example.org  Example nameserver

   Since the information about the zone cuts will be stored in the
   resolver's cache, the performance cost is probably reasonable.
   Section 6 discusses this performance discrepancy further.

   Note that DNSSEC-validating resolvers already have access to this
   information, since they have to know the zone cut (the DNSKEY record
   set is just below; the DS record set is just above).

3.  Possible Issues

   TODO may be remove the whole section now that it is no longer
   experimental?

   QNAME minimisation is legal, since the original DNS RFCs do not
   mandate sending the full QNAME.  So, in theory, it should work
   without any problems.  However, in practice, some problems may occur




Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   (see [Huque-QNAME-Min] for an analysis and [Huque-QNAME-storify] for
   an interesting discussion on this topic).

   Some broken name servers do not react properly to QTYPE=NS requests.
   For instance, some authoritative name servers embedded in load
   balancers reply properly to A queries but send REFUSED to NS queries.
   This behaviour is a protocol violation, and there is no need to stop
   improving the DNS because of such behaviour.  However, QNAME
   minimisation may still work with such domains, since they are only
   leaf domains (no need to send them NS requests).  Such a setup breaks
   more than just QNAME minimisation.  It breaks negative answers, since
   the servers don't return the correct SOA, and it also breaks anything
   dependent upon NS and SOA records existing at the top of the zone.

   Another way to deal with such incorrect name servers would be to try
   with QTYPE=A requests (A being chosen because it is the most common
   and hence a QTYPE that will always be accepted, while a QTYPE NS may
   ruffle the feathers of some middleboxes).  Instead of querying
   name servers with a query "NS example.com", we could use
   "A _.example.com" and see if we get a referral.  TODO this is what
   Unbound does

   A problem can also appear when a name server does not react properly
   to ENTs (Empty Non-Terminals).  If ent.example.com has no resource
   records but foobar.ent.example.com does, then ent.example.com is an
   ENT.  Whatever the QTYPE, a query for ent.example.com must return
   NODATA (NOERROR / ANSWER: 0).  However, some name servers incorrectly
   return NXDOMAIN for ENTs.  If a resolver queries only
   foobar.ent.example.com, everything will be OK, but if it implements
   QNAME minimisation, it may query ent.example.com and get an NXDOMAIN.
   See also Section 3 of [DNS-Res-Improve] for the other bad
   consequences of this bad behaviour.

   A possible solution, currently implemented in Knot or Unbound, is to
   retry with the full query when you receive an NXDOMAIN.  It works,
   but it is not ideal for privacy.

   Other practices that do not conform to the DNS protocol standards may
   pose a problem: there is a common DNS trick used by some web hosters
   that also do DNS hosting that exploits the fact that the DNS protocol
   (pre-DNSSEC) allows certain serious misconfigurations, such as parent
   and child zones disagreeing on the location of a zone cut.
   Basically, they have a single zone with wildcards for each TLD, like:

   *.example.          60  IN  A   192.0.2.6

   (They could just wildcard all of "*.", which would be sufficient.  We
   don't know why they don't do it.)



Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   This lets them have many web-hosting customers without having to
   configure thousands of individual zones on their name servers.  They
   just tell the prospective customer to point their NS records at the
   hoster's name servers, and the web hoster doesn't have to provision
   anything in order to make the customer's domain resolve.  NS queries
   to the hoster will therefore not give the right result, which may
   endanger QNAME minimisation (it will be a problem for DNSSEC, too).

4.  Protocol and Compatibility Discussion

   QNAME minimisation is compatible with the current DNS system and
   therefore can easily be deployed; since it is a unilateral change to
   the resolver, it does not change the protocol.  (Because it is a
   unilateral change, resolver implementers may do QNAME minimisation in
   slightly different ways; see the appendices for examples.)

   One should note that the behaviour suggested here (minimising the
   amount of data sent in QNAMEs from the resolver) is NOT forbidden by
   Section 5.3.3 of [RFC1034] or Section 7.2 of [RFC1035].  As stated in
   Section 1, the current method, sending the full QNAME, is not
   mandated by the DNS protocol.

   One may notice that many documents that explain the DNS and that are
   intended for a wide audience incorrectly describe the resolution
   process as using QNAME minimisation (e.g., by showing a request going
   to the root, with just the TLD in the query).  As a result, these
   documents may confuse readers that use them for privacy analysis.

5.  Operational Considerations

   TODO what to do if the resolver forwards?  Unbound disables QNAME
   minimisation in that case, since the forwarder will see everything,
   anyway.  What should a minimising resolver do when forwading the
   request to a forwarder, not to an authoritative name server?  Send
   the full qname?  Minimises?  (But how since we do not know the zone
   cut?)

   The administrators of the forwarders, and of the authoritative
   name servers, will get less data, which will reduce the utility of
   the statistics they can produce (such as the percentage of the
   various QTYPEs).

   DNS administrators are reminded that the data on DNS requests that
   they store may have legal consequences, depending on your
   jurisdiction (check with your local lawyer).






Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


6.  Performance Considerations

   The main goal of QNAME minimisation is to improve privacy by sending
   less data.  However, it may have other advantages.  For instance, if
   a root name server receives a query from some resolver for A.example
   followed by B.example followed by C.example, the result will be three
   NXDOMAINs, since .example does not exist in the root zone.  Under
   query name minimisation, the root name servers would hear only one
   question (for .example itself) to which they could answer NXDOMAIN,
   thus opening up a negative caching opportunity in which the full
   resolver could know a priori that neither B.example nor C.example
   could exist.  Thus, in this common case the total number of upstream
   queries under QNAME minimisation would be counterintuitively less
   than the number of queries under the traditional iteration (as
   described in the DNS standard).  TODO mention [RFC8020]?

   QNAME minimisation may also improve lookup performance for TLD
   operators.  For a typical TLD, delegation-only, and with delegations
   just under the TLD, a two-label QNAME query is optimal for finding
   the delegation owner name.

   QNAME minimisation can decrease performance in some cases -- for
   instance, for a deep domain name (like
   www.host.group.department.example.com, where
   host.group.department.example.com is hosted on example.com's
   name servers).  Let's assume a resolver that knows only the
   name servers of example.com.  Without QNAME minimisation, it would
   send these example.com name servers a query for
   www.host.group.department.example.com and immediately get a specific
   referral or an answer, without the need for more queries to probe for
   the zone cut.  For such a name, a cold resolver with QNAME
   minimisation will, depending on how QNAME minimisation is
   implemented, send more queries, one per label.  Once the cache is
   warm, there will be no difference with a traditional resolver.
   Actual testing is described in [Huque-QNAME-Min].  Such deep domains
   are especially common under ip6.arpa.

7.  Results of the Experimentation

   TODO various experiences from actual deployments, problems heard.
   TODO the Knot bug #339 https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/
   issues/339?  TODO Problems with AWS https://forums.aws.amazon.com/
   thread.jspa?threadID=269116?








Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


8.  Security Considerations

   QNAME minimisation's benefits are clear in the case where you want to
   decrease exposure to the authoritative name server.  But minimising
   the amount of data sent also, in part, addresses the case of a wire
   sniffer as well as the case of privacy invasion by the servers.
   (Encryption is of course a better defense against wire sniffers, but,
   unlike QNAME minimisation, it changes the protocol and cannot be
   deployed unilaterally.  Also, the effect of QNAME minimisation on
   wire sniffers depends on whether the sniffer is on the DNS path.)

   QNAME minimisation offers zero protection against the recursive
   resolver, which still sees the full request coming from the stub
   resolver.

   All the alternatives mentioned in Appendix B decrease privacy in the
   hope of improving performance.  They must not be used if you want
   maximum privacy.

9.  Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   Unbound has QNAME minimisation for several years, and it is now the
   default.  It has two modes, strict (no workaround for broken
   authoritative name servers) and "lax" (retries when there is a
   NXDOMAIN).  TODO Ralph Dolmans talk at OARC https://indico.dns-
   oarc.net/event/22/contributions/332/attachments/310/542/
   unbound_qnamemin_oarc24.pdf




Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   Knot resolver also has QNAME minimisation since 2016, and it is
   activated by default.

   BIND has QNAME minimisation since BIND 9.13.2, released in july 2018.
   Like Unbound, it has several modes, with or without workarounds for
   broken authoritative name servers.

   PowerDNS does not have QNAME minimisation.  TODO
   https://github.com/PowerDNS/pdns/issues/2311

   The public DNS resolver at Cloudflare ("1.1.1.1") has QNAME
   minimisation (it uses Knot).

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [DNS-Res-Improve]
              Vixie, P., Joffe, R., and F. Neves, "Improvements to DNS
              Resolvers for Resiliency, Robustness, and Responsiveness",
              Work in Progress, draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00, June
              2010.

   [HAMMER]   Kumari, W., Arends, R., Woolf, S., and D. Migault, "Highly
              Automated Method for Maintaining Expiring Records", Work
              in Progress, draft-wkumari-dnsop-hammer-01, July 2014.

   [Huque-QNAME-Min]
              Huque, S., "Query name minimization and authoritative
              server behavior", May 2015, <https://indico.dns-
              oarc.net/event/21/contribution/9>.




Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   [Huque-QNAME-storify]
              Huque, S., "Qname Minimization @ DNS-OARC", May 2015,
              <https://storify.com/shuque/qname-minimization-dns-oarc>.

   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dprive-rfc7626-bis]
              Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Dickinson, "DNS Privacy
              Considerations", draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-rfc7626-bis-01
              (work in progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis]
              Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.

   [RFC7816]  Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve
              Privacy", RFC 7816, DOI 10.17487/RFC7816, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7816>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8020]  Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Huque, "NXDOMAIN: There Really Is
              Nothing Underneath", RFC 8020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8020,
              November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8020>.

10.3.  URIs

   [1] https://framagit.org/bortzmeyer/rfc7816-bis

Appendix A.  An Algorithm to Perform QNAME Minimisation

   This algorithm performs name resolution with QNAME minimisation in
   the presence of zone cuts that are not yet known.

   Although a validating resolver already has the logic to find the
   zone cuts, implementers of other resolvers may want to use this
   algorithm to locate the cuts.  This is just a possible aid for
   implementers; it is not intended to be normative:

   (0) If the query can be answered from the cache, do so; otherwise,
       iterate as follows:




Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   (1) Find the closest enclosing NS RRset in your cache.  The owner of
       this NS RRset will be a suffix of the QNAME -- the longest suffix
       of any NS RRset in the cache.  Call this ANCESTOR.

   (2) Initialise CHILD to the same as ANCESTOR.

   (3) If CHILD is the same as the QNAME, resolve the original query
       using ANCESTOR's name servers, and finish.

   (4) Otherwise, add a label from the QNAME to the start of CHILD.

   (5) If you have a negative cache entry for the NS RRset at CHILD, go
       back to step 3.

   (6) Query for CHILD IN NS using ANCESTOR's name servers.  The
       response can be:

       (6a) A referral.  Cache the NS RRset from the authority section,
            and go back to step 1.

       (6b) An authoritative answer.  Cache the NS RRset from the
            answer section, and go back to step 1.

       (6c) An NXDOMAIN answer.  Return an NXDOMAIN answer in response
            to the original query, and stop.

       (6d) A NOERROR/NODATA answer.  Cache this negative answer, and
            go back to step 3.

Appendix B.  Alternatives

   Remember that QNAME minimisation is unilateral, so a resolver is not
   forced to implement it exactly as described here.

   There are several ways to perform QNAME minimisation.  See Section 2
   for the suggested way.  It can be called the aggressive algorithm,
   since 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.
   Another possible algorithm, not fully studied at this time, could be
   to "piggyback" on the traditional resolution code.  At startup, it
   sends traditional full QNAMEs and learns the zone cuts from the
   referrals received, then switches to NS queries asking only for the
   minimum domain name.  This leaks more data but could require fewer
   changes in the existing resolver codebase.

   In the above specification, the original QTYPE is replaced by NS (or
   may be A, if too many servers react incorrectly to NS requests); this
   is the best approach to preserve privacy.  But this erases



Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             QNAME Minimisation                  July 2018


   information about the relative use of the various QTYPEs, which may
   be interesting for researchers (for instance, if they try to follow
   IPv6 deployment by counting the percentage of AAAA vs. A queries).  A
   variant of QNAME minimisation would be to keep the original QTYPE.

   Another useful optimisation may be, in the spirit of the HAMMER idea
   [HAMMER], to probe in advance for the introduction of zone cuts where
   none previously existed (i.e., confirm their continued absence, or
   discover them).

   To address the "number of queries" issue described in Section 6, a
   possible solution is to always use the traditional algorithm when the
   cache is cold and then to move to QNAME minimisation (precisely
   defining what is "hot" or "cold" is left to the implementer).  This
   will decrease the privacy but will guarantee no degradation of
   performance.

Acknowledgments

   TODO (refer to 7816)

Changes from RFC 7816

      Fixed errata #4644

      Moved to standards track

Authors' Addresses

   Stephane Bortzmeyer
   AFNIC
   1, rue Stephenson
   Montigny-le-Bretonneux  78180
   France

   Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
   Email: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
   URI:   https://www.afnic.fr/


   Paul Hoffman
   ICANN

   Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org







Bortzmeyer & Hoffman    Expires January 18, 2019               [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/