[NCAP-Discuss] Workflow methods

[Thomas, Matthew]

That cleared it up.  Thanks!

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Reply to: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2023 at 12:35
To: "ncap-discuss at icann.org" <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Workflow methods

Matt,

It means the following paths make sense to me:

1 -> end
1 -> 2 -> end
1 -> 3 -> end
1 -> 3 -> 4 -> end

But these ones don’t:

1 -> 2 -> 3 -> end
1 -> 2 -> 4 -> end
1 -> 2 -> 3-> 4-> end


Rubens




Em 1 de dez. de 2023, à(s) 05:09, Thomas, Matthew <mthomas at verisign.com> escreveu:

Rubens,

I’m not sure I grok the last statement of “don’t see any value of doing (2) before doing (3) or (4)…”.  The very first thing you said was “Depending on the results of (1), end here, go with (2) and end there, or go with (3)” which seems to be contradictory.  Can you elaborate for clarity?

Matt

From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss at icann.org>>
Reply to: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2023 at 00:07
To: "ncap-discuss at icann.org" <ncap-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Workflow methods





Em 30 de nov. de 2023, à(s) 13:59, Matt Larson <matt.larson at icann.org> escreveu:





On Nov 29, 2023, at 1:54 PM, Casey Deccio <casey at deccio.net> wrote:

This is why I was suggesting a few calls ago that if the user experience is the same for (2) and (3), why don't we just skip to (3), so we also get better data?

(i.e., skipping controlled interruption and going directly to reject all)

The user experience between (2) and (3) might be the same (or essentially the same), but to channel Jeff Schmidt, there is notification value in the returned value of 127.0.53.53 for those administrators who investigate a failure, see that IP address, and do a Google search.

The other thing that controlled interruption has going for it was that we’ve already used the technique many times and it didn’t break the Internet.

FWIW, the sequences I imagined with (1) to (4) were like this:

(1) - For all TLDs

Depending on the results of (1), end here, go with (2) and end there, or go with (3).

(3) For TLDs that justified that based on the results of (1)

Depending on the results of (3), go with (4) or end here. And ending could either mean “ok for delegation” or “not ok for delegation”.

(4) For TLDs that justified that based on the results of (3)

Depending on the results of (4): ending with root zone removal in case of “too risky” or not having root zone removal in case of “ok for delegation”.

I don’t see any value of doing (2) before doing (3) or (4)…


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/attachments/20231201/984ec77c/attachment.html>