On 7 sep 2013, at 15:31, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 5c. Things may have changed since 6686. We should do more data collection.
> - There's no reason to believe that the small amounts of recently presented data are representative.
> - Nobody presented any basis to doubt the folks working in the industry.
> - There has been ample opportunity (and motivation) for folks outside of the WG to do more data collection; none has been presented.
> - It is an unreasonable burden to place on the WG at this point.
FWIW, we at Netnod that run i-root have been looking at the queries we get to the root name server of ours.
We have been looking at the data collected during the DITL collection which is 30-48 hour collections of data that happens once a year.
What we did look at was first of all every query for an MX resource record. Then we look at +/-1 second from the timestamp of that MX query for TXT and/or SPF record for the same owner. We draw the conclusion that if there is a query for an MX record, and then either TXT or SPF (or both) within the approximately same timespan, then they are related queries.
We did look at 2011, 2012 and 2013.
The result is the following:
Date MX TXT SPF %TXT/MX %SPF/MX %SPF/TXT
2011-06-07 148528658 7484035 784386 5.0% 0.5% 10.5%
2012-04-17 90779132 4839143 536467 5.3% 0.6% 11.1%
2013-05-28 114353838 11554391 1595777 10.1% 1.4% 13.8%
What we see is that the percentage of TXT queries per MX query has gone up from 5% to 10.1% and SPF queries went up from 0.5% to 1.4%. The percentage of SPF queries compared to TXT went up from 10.5% to 13.8%.
Regards, Patrik Fältström