[RSSAC Caucus] RSS Metrics work party -- purpose of metrics

[fujiwara at jprs.co.jp]

I prefer another order.

1. Define metrics from any vantage points and how to measure.
2. Perform measurements for a while. (and see results)
3. Define service level.

I think current service of root-servers is very good.
For example, 10 root-server addresses (of 26) answers within 3 ms at my home.
(22/26 answers within 130ms)

# com/net nameservers case, 3/13 IPv4 servers answer within 3ms.
# all IPv6 servers' RTT >= 107ms. (US west or farther location)

I don't oppose metrics designed to measure service levels first.
However, service level should not depend on vantage point locations.

I proposed to measure and compare the servers of other domain names
(for example, .net or cann.org) as well as the root servers in order
to avoid the influence of the measurement point.

For example, when smallest RTT to icann.org/.net/root servers is
larger than 300ms, the vantage point has poor link to major part of
the Internet.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara at jprs.co.jp>

> From: "Wessels, Duane via rssac-caucus" <rssac-caucus at icann.org>
> Dear RSSAC Caucus,
> 
> The RSS Metrics work party has been of two minds somewhat with the purpose
> of the proposed metrics.  On one hand we want metrics that can be used to
> measure service levels.  On the other, we want measurements that could be
> used to characterize end user experiences and for research into resolver
> behavior.  The purpose of the metrics affects decisions, such as the
> location and operation of measurement vantage points.
> 
> In order to make progress, the work party chairs and shepherds recommend
> that we limit the scope to metrics designed to measure service levels.  If
> we can achieve consensus on this point, then the work party can advance
> to discussions and decisions about vantage point locations.
> 
> Resolver behavior and other uses of metrics can be addressed in future
> revisions of this work or another work party if so desired.
> 
> If there is any opposition to this proposal, please share your thoughts
> either on the list, or at the upcoming work party meeting on July 22 so
> we can discuss, reach consensus and ultimately make progress.
> 
> Duane / Russ
> 
>