From 7a5dcbe29ff34afad7f8180a2f3f9c621d739662 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Otto Moerbeek Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:50:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Apply suggestions from code review Typos Co-Authored-By: Remi Gacogne --- pdns/recursordist/docs/appendices/internals.rst | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/pdns/recursordist/docs/appendices/internals.rst b/pdns/recursordist/docs/appendices/internals.rst index a4fce1b413..81bfa025bd 100644 --- a/pdns/recursordist/docs/appendices/internals.rst +++ b/pdns/recursordist/docs/appendices/internals.rst @@ -363,11 +363,11 @@ QName Minimization Since the 4.3 release, the recursor implements a relaxed form of QName Minimization. This is a method to enhance privacy and described in the (draft) RFC 7816. By asking the authoritative server not the full -QName, but one more label than we already know it is athoratative for +QName, but one more label than we already know it is authoritative for we do not leak which exact names are queried to servers higher up in the hierarchy. -The implemenation uses a relaxed form of QName Minimization, following +The implementation uses a relaxed form of QName Minimization, following the recommendations found in the paper "A First Look at QNAME Minimization in the Domain Name System" by De Vries et all. @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ already have a limit on the number of outgoing queries induced by a client query. We do a final full QName query if we get an unexpected error. This happens when we encounter authoritative servers that are not fully compliant, there are still many servers like that. The -recursor records with respect to this fallback scnenario in the +recursor records with respect to this fallback scenario in the ``qname-min-fallback-success`` metric. For forwarded queries, we do not use QName Minimization. -- 2.47.2