[SLE Team] {SPAM/L} RE: {SPAM/L} RE: FW: SLEs - Working Draft

[Elaine Pruis]

Agreed, I want to know how long it takes them from the time they get a
request to the time they action it, not just how long actioning takes.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Patricio Poblete <ppoblete at nic.cl> wrote:

> Dear Adam,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I think that there should not be time on the
> IANA side that is unaccounted for. If there is time between steps that
> could potentially be significant, I would support computing the total time
> spent in the IANA side, in addition to the time spent in each step.
>
> Patricio
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Adam Smith <adam.smith at cdns.net> wrote:
>
>> Patricio,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your response.  Please see my answers below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* patricio.poblete at gmail.com [mailto:patricio.poblete at gmail.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Patricio Poblete
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:02 PM
>> *To:* Adam Smith <adam.smith at cdns.net>
>> *Cc:* Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane at cdns.net>; Jay Daley <jay at nzrs.net.nz>;
>> Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff at rightside.co>; Jeff Neuman <
>> jeff.neuman at valideus.com>; Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.email>;
>> dt1 at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: {SPAM/L} RE: FW: SLEs - Working Draft
>>
>>
>>
>> If so, could you tell us what is their reasoning for just having a single
>> customer request process time rather than both the time taken for each
>> specific process step as well as the cumulative transaction time?
>>
>>
>>
>> IANA’s reasoning is that it is duplicative to measure both the process
>> steps and cumulative transaction time.  If the all the step’s SLE times are
>> maintained then their process meets the SLE.  Unfortunately, this opens up
>> an opportunity where, even though, the individual steps are efficiently
>> maintained, there still could be delays in the “queues” between steps.  So
>> for example, if you were to have a simple change request for NS records go
>> through, the overall process could still take a months, but the SLEs of
>> each step still could be in-line with the requirements and the transaction
>> considered a success.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure I understand this.
>>
>>
>>
>> If all time is accounted for somewhere, either at the customer side or at
>> the IANA side, the described scenario could not happen. There should be no
>> time "between steps".
>>
>> Please note, since we started this process, we have been only looking at
>> the part of the process that is in IANA’s control.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you include a cumulative time of the entire process, then yes there
>> should be no “time between steps”, if there is, then the request will fail
>> the cumulative time because you have to add the step time + the queue time.
>> If you just measure the steps, the time differential between the time stamp
>> at the beginning and the time stamp at the completion of the step, and
>> there is no requirement on the time “between steps”, one request could be
>> pulled in “between steps” for another request without consequence.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can understand IANA not wishing to have total elapsed time in an SLE,
>> because that includes time spent at the customer side, outside IANA's
>> control. But since the initial and final timestamps would be available, it
>> should be easy to know what the total time was. –Please note above, this
>> is IANA processing time only.  The definition I have used in the document
>> is “Cumulative IANA Processing Time”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Patricio
>>
>
>


-- 


[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://www.donuts.domains>
*Elaine Pruis*, Vice President, Operations
*Donuts Inc. <http://www.donuts.domains>*
10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue Washington, 98004, U.S.A. |
Telephone: 509.899.3161
[image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>[image: Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>[image: Linked In]
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt1/attachments/20150805/95c5ec04/attachment-0001.html>