[NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques

Wed Nov 9 15:09:35 UTC 2022

Hia – I was referring to the technical conversation on the dns-operations list circa this past spring where both standards compliant and non-standards-compliant technical approaches were being debated. There are plusses and minuses. The NCAP document and Casey’s document don’t contain sufficient detail to determine the exact implementation variety currently being promoted (or if they do I missed it).

It sounds like the current thinking is a properly formatted empty zone with COTS authoritative server software (no server modification changes required) hosting a proper and complete empty zone. The root delegation would be typical. I think there would be a change in behavior wrt NXD vs NODATA in some narrow cases, but yeah it seems that would be standards compliant. If you could post the template of the actual zone you’re proposing be hosted that would be illustrative.

Jeff

From: Thomas, Matthew <mthomas at verisign.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com>; casey at deccio.net; ncap-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques

Hi Jeff,

I’m not sure where the PCA non-compliance statement is coming from.  Nor do I understand:  “There is nothing about PCA that is “less disruptive” or in any way “safer.” That is false marketing. It is an unknown, untested, and non-standards-compliant procedure and we have no idea what will happen should we actually do it.”

We settled on a empty zone configuration, which is the same as any TLD post-CI (minus nic.TLD).  So it is the equivalent of post-CI and has just as much operational experience as CI.

Matt

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com<mailto:jschmidt at jasadvisors.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 6:17 PM
To: Casey Deccio <casey at deccio.net<mailto:casey at deccio.net>>, NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, Casey:

I think your analysis would benefit from adding a few dimensions, I don’t think these are controversial or in question:

Operational Experience & Community Awareness
ACA: None
PCA: None
CI: 10+ years

Technical Standards Compliance
ACA: Compliant
PCA: Not compliant
CI: Compliant

Root/IANA Changes (expected case, as currently described)
ACA: 2x unique strings
PCA: 2x unique strings
CI: 1x unique strings

Also, CI could be expanded to include v6. It was a choice not to include it in 2012, but there is nothing that innately prohibits it. Now, in 2023, I would probably use FE80::/10 (link local), but it would be good to test in a lab. I would simply note that v6 “could be added.”

Thx,
Jeff

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Casey Deccio <casey at deccio.net<mailto:casey at deccio.net>>
Date: Friday, October 28, 2022 at 6:32 AM
To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques
Dear all,

One of the topics that has repeatedly surfaced in the discussion group is the desire for an objective comparison of the different techniques that have been proposed for alerting and data collection, namely passive collision assessment, active collision assessment, and controlled interruption. Such a comparison would help the discussion group better understand the implications of each of the mechanisms, so the group can be in a better position to provide input about the recommendations in study 2.

To address this, we have written the following document, "Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques":

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14g4hp_BlosWQJ6-otygww9OHmu1C0GCHIMyfsinbqOE/edit?usp=sharing
(If you find that you do not have access, please request it.)

The document provides a high-level overview of each of the techniques and compares them using different considerations, including alerting effectiveness, operational continuity, security and privacy, user experience, root cause identification, public reception, and telemetry. It also describes the two active measurements techniques--ad-based measurements and RIPE Atlas probes--and the value added from those, in light of the other considerations.

The document is currently written as a (mostly) stand-alone document, but we intend to fold it into the main body of the study 2 report.

Note that as part of this effort, I have introduced a new data set and analysis into the root cause analysis document. The new section containing that analysis is section 5 and is referred to in the comparison document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YSvdH9Slws0iW3e6yoS04s5zANBnyMMFn9DUNE19fkg/edit?usp=sharing

The bits of text that have been updated in connection with this addition are the following:

- Section 3.2 - introduction of Web Search Results
- Section 4.1 (last paragraph - analysis of controlled interruption post 90 days added
- Section 5 - Analysis of Web Search Results
- Section 10.1 - Two new findings added, and one finding updated

Heather and I plan to discuss the comparison document with the discussion group on a future call.  In advance of that discussion, we invite everyone to read the text and offer feedback on the mailing list.

Thanks,
Casey
_______________________________________________
NCAP-Discuss mailing list
NCAP-Discuss at icann.org<mailto:NCAP-Discuss at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1T-kTVvkVgygzF0ES4lz-pSWfDmn6WCUD8JXR6k4dT199vTvggWhH6X0uxiTK7MP01q9WhL97uNGPFe-8KuXQhxMu_UovNs7WX5cgfF8_0zchlFNN0hjfrxsitn5sEsndGoDfRLHxCBkbUIZEHUh_ls1HTT0nKW09qCEExJNfS48cJ7mmlddpIwlieoT52zA6T9pb1MZq3X1bthaG6_Nqkyv-L7Hd2JoQdC-fYRpqlFr6ir2fYpwvDQKqadw1lCMqGfU2Mhgw97zzKtAoc7WzZH4L3weKq4hUiMd7jGRImK0/https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fncap-discuss>

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://secure-web.cisco.com/11H3OQsPntBtGJ1TUiDpfJxDdCSG59gsicts02lSqQGiUcfKUv_t-6U7ay2qX8nC6hrxC6m3gG1j625nMPjJcnUPdlTUsh341BiPTO620t-Uz0KkPrK-jL2WkItuUUIqqvCpG2bMV3m4Kni7hnl1FFXPT9BUb-v2LLg18cDjoOBs_uy-6T5cGAv6QugodkFxTOQIWgNpw6eY0nWgzZX-xySWLCCDzXWs_zmL5r4y_05WQQIbUJER1yTOtNdY4iUPWTjZAPQTJ0E2DviejoOyGVFBYzCpuaR2syNEW88lO2xk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iLPT42BOUpMhfUlO3MwL4hN1r3ikYhSDy87lp0FiwpXhGRMks2XD26ajmepf3uC4zYriq0CLTtNpL2xBFUh1-9jc4QLH4pGMx7wxbi-MFqDd257-swMb4erhow3M3cjjafM06JZg909rNed7mcsilpFTNiKlk1N7T3B-fCZS_Q6-vlQa69zTbz6LYrjQb5CDaPYFFKc5QLwSnjUTHkkMm6VS-aEwi_JTGrw3C6_Fkx93bD3ULeT7j7fsEwSvhUU7tcghEWSxOu8IwytX1yDkzGBc1mz-Q5VAsl9YkQjCHco/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20221109/b638246c/attachment-0001.html>