[NCAP-Discuss] Possible inaccuracies in Study 2

[Rubens Kuhl]

I have done a full re-read of Study 2, and have some comments I suggest addressing:

1. It’s assumed in many sections of the text that root loopback and QNAME minimization will have the full impact of its adoption on seeing collisions at the root server system. But this doesn’t take into account that most of the adoption of such technologies is done by more sophisticated operators (Global recursive such as quad8/9, large ISPs) that were not creating collision opportunities in the first place. There could be a small intersection, like an operator of a local namespace using forward to ISP/global recursive, but the point is that most collisions that actually happen is more likely to still be visible at the root servers.

2. Root Loopback is mentioned by RFC 7706, but it was obsoleted by RFC 8806. Perhaps mentioning both would cover historic and current aspects.

3. .mail is made a benchmark of high risk, but .mail is not an ordinary collision string. Most of its collisions were found to be dotless (single label mail),  and other than that .mail is very different from the dispersion seen in .internal, .corp or .home. So a string having a higher CDM score than .mail is not surprising and not an indication per se that those delegated strings shouldn’t have been. These comparisons also look at the score as a single dimension, where other factors in the text are mentioned to also be relevant to a collision assessment, thus making the study contradict itself.



Rubens








-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20230729/7e3869ec/signature.asc>