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

Wed Nov 9 15:37:43 UTC 2022

Hi Jeff,

Thanks so much for your thoughts.  See my thoughts below.

> On Nov 8, 2022, at 4:17 PM, Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt at jasadvisors.com> wrote:
> 
> 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

It's true that it is neither controversial nor in question, but it also adds no technical value.  Controlled interruption has been the status quo.  It has had no competition.  In any case, I've tried to include things that we've learned from controlled interruption, which is more important to me for an objective comparison than how long it has been around.

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

Sorry, this does not make any sense to me.

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

This is a great consideration and might be referenced somewhere in the greater document.  That being said, it is not a technical consideration but an administrative consideration, so I have left it out of the comparison document.

> 
> 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.”

Good thoughts.  The document reflects this sentiment with the following text:

"More experimentation and analysis can be done to test controlled interruption using addresses from these and possibly other [IPv6] ranges, but it is beyond the scope of this work.... In summary, there is currently no IPv6 address for controlled interruption.  Such would require additional considerations and, perhaps most importantly, testing."

And finally:

"The need for IPv6 in controlled interruption seems low, but remains unclear without thorough studies, including in environments like NAT64."

All that being said, I agree that a good place to start testing would be fe80::/10, but it comes with its own set of challenges.  And again, that is outside the scope of this study.

Casey

>  
> Thx,
> Jeff
>  
>  
>  
> From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Casey Deccio <casey at deccio.net>
> Date: Friday, October 28, 2022 at 6:32 AM
> To: NCAP Discussion Group <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 <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 <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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-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://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). 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/20221109/543dbd59/attachment-0001.html>