[ICANN-CSC] [EXTERNAL] PTI report October 2017 and related draft CSC report/findings

[Feher, Kal]

Thanks Amy and Jay,
I'm fine with it.

--
Kal Feher
Neustar Inc.
Melbourne, Australia





On 16/11/17, 04:29, "Amy Creamer" <amy.creamer at icann.org> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>Attached is a redlined version with Jay's text.
>
>Regards,
>Amy Creamer
>GDD Strategic Project Manager
>310-578-8910 - office
>424-537-8917 ­ mobile
>amy.creamer at icann.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ICANN-CSC [mailto:icann-csc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jay
>Daley
>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:53 AM
>To: Feher, Kal <Kalman.Feher at team.neustar>
>Cc: ICANN-CSC at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [ICANN-CSC] [EXTERNAL] PTI report October 2017 and related
>draft CSC report/findings
>
>I agree with Kal and I too am happy with the rest of the report.  I
>suggest the following simpler wording.
>
>Jay
>
>Regarding the Technical Check (First) missed service level, PTI has
>previously informed the CSC that this SLA is missed due to an historic
>design decision to process these checks in series and while the active
>performance of the technical test itself does not exceed the SLA, the SLA
>is exceeded because some requests were queued waiting to be performed.
>The next revision of RZMS will have the technical check portion
>substantially rewritten and will allow greater parallelization of the
>testing being performed.
>
>> On 15/11/2017, at 1:59 PM, Feher, Kal via ICANN-CSC
>><icann-csc at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I would like to suggest a minor change to the Technical Check (first)
>>explanation paragraph. In particular the words in the  last sentence
>>after the comma ",which would re-categorize this month¹s performance for
>>this metric as Œmet¹." is incorrect in my opinion. Parallelising the
>>checks is likely to result in better performance and thus we are hopeful
>>that these checks will meet the SLA in the future, even when there are
>>several checks in the same time period. However the October performance
>>of these tests will not be recategorised as met as a result of the
>>system change.
>> 
>> I think we could either remove that part of the sentence or replace it
>>with some text about how the incidence of queued tests should
>>drastically be reduced or even removed entirely.
>> 
>> Other than that amendment, I'm fine with the report.
>> 
>> Kal Feher
>> Neustar Inc.
>> Melbourne, Australia
>> 
>> 
>> From: ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bart
>> Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2017 at 04:43
>> To: "ICANN-CSC at icann.org" <icann-csc at icann.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ICANN-CSC] PTI report October 2017 and related
>> draft CSC report/findings
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> As you know there will be NO call tomorrow 15 November. Last week
>> Naella Send you the PTI report and Amy the CSC draft findings (both are
>>included again) If you have any comments, questions or suggestions
>>please send them to the list by Wednesday 15 November 23.59 UTC.
>> As indicated the secretariat would like to be able to send out the CSC
>>findings by 17 November 10, 2017.
>> Thank you and regards,
>> Bart
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> ICANN-CSC mailing list
>> ICANN-CSC at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc
>
>
>--
>Jay Daley
>Chief Executive
>NZRS Ltd
>desk: +64 4 931 6977
>mobile: +64 21 678840
>linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley
>
>_______________________________________________
>ICANN-CSC mailing list
>ICANN-CSC at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-csc