[rssac-caucus] Opening RSSAC-002 for revision [AXFR]

[P Vixie]

"To my reading that very much looks like an expectation of consistent
results across all operators."

Yes.

On October 20, 2015 11:08:11 AM PDT, Ray Bellis <ray at isc.org> wrote:
>On 20/10/2015 17:58, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
>> Please keep in mind that for this particular metric 'consistent
>results
>> across all operators' are not necessarily to be expected. As
>RSSAC-002
>> itself also explains, the goal of providing this metric was "to
>detect
>> any trends in the growth of the zone". Of course serious issues like
>> truncated zone files are a different thing altogether, but size
>> differences related to compression differences could occur.
>
>In between the text Duane quoted, and what you've quoted above,
>RSSAC002
>says:
>
>"The size of the compiled root zone is not expected to change from
>operator to operator; but in an effort to ensure consistency in the
>root
>system all operators should report the size of the root zone so if
>there
>are any differences that are seen on the platform they can be
>identified
>and remedied."
>
>To my reading that very much looks like an expectation of consistent
>results across all operators.
>
>To be fair, if everyone _emulated_ an AXFR using the given parameters,
>that's what you'd get, but if you perform a real AXFR and measure the
>results, you probably won't.
>
>FWIW, I endorse the later suggestion that the measurement should be
>made
>on the *uncompressed* zone post AXFR.
>
>Ray
>
>_______________________________________________
>rssac-caucus mailing list
>rssac-caucus at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20151020/d3a21e2e/attachment.html>