[rssac-caucus] REMINDER - FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs

[Shinta Sato]

Hi Steve-san,

Please check the below comments.
Sorry for my late response that I missed the CoB of 15 June in Japan,
but I believe it is still okay in other countries.

----------------
  1) whether there are any factual errors with the document.

    I didn't see the factual errors, but came up with some questions
    and editorial comments.  These should be addressed.

      - The expressions in the terminology part varies.
        - reference to the RFCs exists or not
        - way to refer the RFCs
        - link to the URL exists or not

      - Some abbreviation and words are used without enough descriptions.
        ex) AA, TLD, Root Glue, TLD Glue,
            NS RRset TTL (whether glue of root(.) itself or TLD delegation?)

      - In the description of the SOA, nothing is mentioned for the
        REFRESH and RETRY.  These can be described in combination with
        EXPIRE, as the parameters for the secondary name servers to
        determine the zone transfer timing.

      - In the last paragraph of 6.1.1, the word RTT is used to
        explain the Figure 2.  I could not understand this expression
        because the Figure 2 does not contain any information about
        RTT.  The figure might be wrong.

  2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions
     that are drawn from these studies

    I could not find specific problem statement throughout the
    document.  Thus, the motivation of this study is not clear enough.
    It would be better if we can set up the problem with case examples
    or specific patterns.

  3) whether you agree with the findings of the report

    no objections.

  4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report

    no objections.

    If the issue is logically problematic, it should be fixed.  But
    the other issues which has not been seen as the current
    operational problem do not need to be actively addressed.  The
    recommendations match this way.

  5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options
     articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred?

    The parameters which is not causing the operational problem
    directly should not be changed easily.  If we shorten the Expire
    period, there may be negative operational impact in the case of
    communication trouble between root-zone distributor and
    root-servers.  The parameter of the DNSSEC validity period is the
    place we can be changed without other impact.
----------------

Just let me know if you have any questions in above comments.

Best Regards,

Shinta Sato <shinta at jprs.co.jp>
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:41:37 +0000
Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear RSSAC Caucus, 
> 
>   This is a reminder for you to review the draft report on TTLs for the root
> zone. The review is due by close of business 15 June 2015.
> 
>   In particular in your review, it would be great if you could comment on:
> 
>    1) whether there are any factual errors with the document.
>    2) whether you agree with the study methodology and the conclusions that
> are drawn from these studies
>    3) whether you agree with the findings of the report
>    4) whether you agree with the recommendations in this report
>    5) whether you have any advice on which of the mitigation options
> articulated in section 6.4.3 should be preferred?
> 
>    Also, are there any interest to have a briefing call on this report?
> Right now, the most likely time would be Monday 15 June.
> 
> Thanks, 
> Steve
> 
> From:  Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org>
> Date:  Monday, June 8, 2015 at 1:37 PM
> To:  "rssac-caucus at icann.org" <rssac-caucus at icann.org>
> Subject:  [rssac-caucus] FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs
> 
> > Dear RSSAC Caucus,
> > 
> >    On behalf of the caucus work party on Root Zone TTLs, attached please find
> > for your review the draft RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs. The work party is
> > chaired by Duane Wessels, work party members include Joe Abley, Jaap
> > Akkerhuis, John Bond, Brian Dickson, Shumon Huque, Warren Kumari, Duane
> > Wessels (work party leader) and Matthew Thomas (invited expert). Staff support
> > are: Steve Sheng, Barbara Roseman and Kathy Schnitt.
> > 
> >    Root zone TTLs have not changed since 1999.  In this report, the RSSAC
> > caucus studies the extent to which the current root zone TTLs are still
> > appropriate for today1s internet environment. The report contains a number of
> > findings and recommendations through four sets of empirical analyses. The work
> > party chair invites you to give this report a careful review.
> > 
> >      One thing the chair wish to highlight is that the work party discovered
> > two potential problems related to the interaction between the SOA Expire value
> > and the root zone1s signature validity period. It also identified several
> > mitigation options, and conducted a preliminary analysis of these options.
> > However, the work party has yet to reach a conclusion to recommend which
> > measure to take. It would be good to hear some feedback from the Caucus. Short
> > of more definitive feedback from the Caucus, the work party will recommend
> > further consultation in this area.
> > 
> >     The work party chair requests you provide your review by close of business
> > (anywhere around the world)  15 June 2015, if possible. This will allow the
> > work party time to discuss and finalize the document in time for RSSAC
> > consideration in Buenos Aires.
> > 
> > All the best, 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> 
>