[rssac-caucus] REMINDER - FOR REVIEW: DRAFT RSSAC Report on Root zone TTLs
Steve Sheng
steve.sheng at icann.org
Tue Jun 16 15:06:58 UTC 2015
Thanks Shinta!
Steve
On 6/15/15, 11:06 PM, "Shinta Sato" <shinta at jprs.co.jp> wrote:
>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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20150616/ab88b762/smime.p7s>
More information about the rssac-caucus
mailing list