<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* 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:blue;
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="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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).<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">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.<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">Jeff<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>
<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-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Thomas, Matthew <mthomas@verisign.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeff Schmidt <jschmidt@jasadvisors.com>; casey@deccio.net; ncap-discuss@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi Jeff,<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 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.”<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">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.<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">Matt<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"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">NCAP-Discuss <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">>
on behalf of Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ncap-discuss@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Jeff Schmidt <</span><a href="mailto:jschmidt@jasadvisors.com"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">jschmidt@jasadvisors.com</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 6:17 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Casey Deccio <</span><a href="mailto:casey@deccio.net"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">casey@deccio.net</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">>, NCAP Discussion Group <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ncap-discuss@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXTERNAL] Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="1185" style="width:888.75pt;background:#F5ECCE">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="1175" style="width:881.25pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993300">Caution:</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#993300"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">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. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hi, Casey:<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 your analysis would benefit from adding a few dimensions, I don’t think these are controversial or in question:<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">Operational Experience & Community Awareness<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACA: None<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">PCA: None<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CI: 10+ years<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">Technical Standards Compliance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACA: Compliant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">PCA: Not compliant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CI: Compliant<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">Root/IANA Changes (expected case, as currently described)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACA: 2x unique strings<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">PCA: 2x unique strings <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">CI: 1x unique strings<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">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.”<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,<br>
Jeff<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>
<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">NCAP-Discuss <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ncap-discuss-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">> on behalf of Casey
Deccio <</span><a href="mailto:casey@deccio.net"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">casey@deccio.net</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, October 28, 2022 at 6:32 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>NCAP Discussion Group <</span><a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">ncap-discuss@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[NCAP-Discuss] Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear all,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
To address this, we have written the following document, "Comparison of Proposed Alerting and Data Collection Techniques":<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/14g4hp_BlosWQJ6-otygww9OHmu1C0GCHIMyfsinbqOE/edit?usp=sharing"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://docs.google.com/document/d/14g4hp_BlosWQJ6-otygww9OHmu1C0GCHIMyfsinbqOE/edit?usp=sharing</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
(If you find that you do not have access, please request it.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YSvdH9Slws0iW3e6yoS04s5zANBnyMMFn9DUNE19fkg/edit?usp=sharing"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YSvdH9Slws0iW3e6yoS04s5zANBnyMMFn9DUNE19fkg/edit?usp=sharing</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
The bits of text that have been updated in connection with this addition are the following:<br>
<br>
- Section 3.2 - introduction of Web Search Results<br>
- Section 4.1 (last paragraph - analysis of controlled interruption post 90 days added<br>
- Section 5 - Analysis of Web Search Results<br>
- Section 10.1 - Two new findings added, and one finding updated<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Casey<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCAP-Discuss mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:NCAP-Discuss@icann.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">NCAP-Discuss@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
</span><a href="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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (</span><a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/11H3OQsPntBtGJ1TUiDpfJxDdCSG59gsicts02lSqQGiUcfKUv_t-6U7ay2qX8nC6hrxC6m3gG1j625nMPjJcnUPdlTUsh341BiPTO620t-Uz0KkPrK-jL2WkItuUUIqqvCpG2bMV3m4Kni7hnl1FFXPT9BUb-v2LLg18cDjoOBs_uy-6T5cGAv6QugodkFxTOQIWgNpw6eY0nWgzZX-xySWLCCDzXWs_zmL5r4y_05WQQIbUJER1yTOtNdY4iUPWTjZAPQTJ0E2DviejoOyGVFBYzCpuaR2syNEW88lO2xk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">)
and the website Terms of Service (</span><a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1iLPT42BOUpMhfUlO3MwL4hN1r3ikYhSDy87lp0FiwpXhGRMks2XD26ajmepf3uC4zYriq0CLTtNpL2xBFUh1-9jc4QLH4pGMx7wxbi-MFqDd257-swMb4erhow3M3cjjafM06JZg909rNed7mcsilpFTNiKlk1N7T3B-fCZS_Q6-vlQa69zTbz6LYrjQb5CDaPYFFKc5QLwSnjUTHkkMm6VS-aEwi_JTGrw3C6_Fkx93bD3ULeT7j7fsEwSvhUU7tcghEWSxOu8IwytX1yDkzGBc1mz-Q5VAsl9YkQjCHco/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">).
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>