<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks Kim, for the detail about the test.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think that the point that I’m trying to make is that the IANA SLAs are there to measure the effectiveness of the IANA function and things that are within its responsibility.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">In this case, the timer on the SLA is inclusive of time that is outside of the IANA demarcation of responsibility. And thus, as we’ve seen, IANA can be doing a perfectly good job (even doing a fair bit of
parallelism), and because of non-responsiveness the server on the other end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I’m wondering if there is some sort of a factor that can/should be added to account for latency that is not due to IANA?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thx<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Rick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:41 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Rick Wilhelm <Rwilhelm@PIR.org>, Amy Creamer <amy.creamer@iana.org>, Bart Boswinkel via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [ICANN-CSC] July 2023 IANA Naming Function Performance Report<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black;background:yellow">CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not
expecting.</span></strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Rick, Hi all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Generally speaking, a lack of network response from one or more nameservers has a compounding effect across a test run in our systems. Assuming that most nameservers have both an IPv4 and IPv6 address, this
means that we would send four queries (we test each IP address via both TCP and UDP), and then we retry them 3 times before giving up for each query. The current timeout is set to 5 seconds, so this means a minimum of 60 seconds of test time eaten up for each
unresponsive nameserver per sub-test. There are efficiencies through parallel execution of the tests, but that is offset by the fact we query for different kinds of records throughout a test run (SOA, DNSKEY, NS, A/AAAA, RD-bit set). In more pathological cases,
if there are multiple nameservers all in the same network that are unreachable, it can multiply the test time further.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I looked at one test run from the individual case that caused us to exceed our SLAs last month and there were a total of 316 DNS queries sent that were not responded to throughout the course of that one test
run, which took 14 minutes and 40 seconds to complete.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks for the reference to Spec 10, it seems the pertinent standard is <1500ms response for TCP and <500ms response for UDP, for 95% of queries. Since our lookups are a one-shot real-time blocking operation,
as opposed to passive ongoing tests done around the clock for gTLD SLA monitoring, it is a bit of a different proposition. Also I understand ICANN does SLA monitoring for multiple sites and aggregates the performance, which is not something we do in IANA today.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Happy to discuss this further.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">kim</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rick Wilhelm via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Rick Wilhelm <Rwilhelm@PIR.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:38 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Amy Creamer <amy.creamer@iana.org>, Bart Boswinkel via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [ICANN-CSC] July 2023 IANA Naming Function Performance Report</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Amy, et al,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks for sending over the report. This might be a better topic for discussion at the next meeting meting than for the list, but I’ll try to frame it coherently:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Regarding the missed SLA:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From what I can gather in reading the footnote, it seems that during the execution of the “One request (that) exceeded the technical check threshold of 10 minutes”, operations happened normally (i.e. kicked
off normally, experienced no IANA-induced interruptions, etc), and the extra time was spent waiting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It seems to me that the “technical check (retest)” should be designed with a DNS query timeout value that is sufficiently short such that waiting for the timeout(s) to expire does not cause the SLA to be violated.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I’m not familiar with the exact details of the test design, but I’d point folks to the Base Registry Agreement, Specification 10 (</span><a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/u0LtCzpyrXSw8lwSXxy4D?domain=urldefense.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/base-registry-agreement-30-04-2023-en.html
[itp.cdn.icann.org]</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">) search for “will be considered unanswered” for examples of language that contemplate non-responsive services</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Happy to discuss.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Rick</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">ICANN-CSC <icann-csc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amy Creamer via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:39 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Bart Boswinkel via ICANN-CSC <icann-csc@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] [ICANN-CSC] July 2023 IANA Naming Function Performance Report</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black;background:yellow">CAUTION: This email came from outside your organization. Don’t trust emails, links, or attachments from senders that seem suspicious or you are not
expecting.</span></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">
<hr size="0" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black">Dear CSC,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black">Please find attached the IANA Naming Function Performance report for July 2023. During the month of July, we met 98.3% of the SLA thresholds. This was due to missing
the SLA of:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black">Technical Check (Retest) - Routine (Technical): One change request had nameservers that were unreachable within the technical check threshold of 10 minutes. This exception
relates to time spent waiting for nameserver responses, i.e. time waiting to timeout, multiplied by retries.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black">We look forward to answering any questions you may have about the report.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Amy Creamer</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Director of Operations, IANA Services</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Email: </span><a href="mailto:amy.creamer@iana.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">amy.creamer@iana.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Phone: +1-424-537-8917
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>