[RSSAC Caucus] [Ext] FOR REVIEW: RSSAC026v2: RSSAC Lexicon

[Brian Dickson]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Karl Reuss <reuss at umd.edu> wrote:

> On 1/29/20 8:33 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > we have dispensed with 'site' and 'location' as relationships which would
> > define a 'portion of' as a 'root server instance', and that's good (says
> me).
>
> Personally, I'm not ready to give up on location/site as part of the RSSAC
> definition for instance.  When we're at an RSSAC meeting discussing
> instances, location is the primary way we identify them. I really liked the
> plain language Wes used in his recent definitions and i'm concerned your
> more technically accurate definition will confuse much of our RSSAC
> audience.
>
>
I don't think the instance description or methodology needs to be uniform.

After all, an instance is only ever an instance of a *single* root-server's
anycast footprint.

E.g. you can say "instance X of b.root-servers.net", but not "instances at
location X", since those are apples to oranges comparisons.

The naming scheme used by any particular root server operator's instances
should be left up the the operator.

The only real requirement is that for any particular operator, their
instances should be named uniquely, but I think everyone will agree that is
only sensible.

Insisting on a uniform naming is only going to cause problems, and IMHO
doing so (uniform naming) accomplishes nothing particularly useful.

Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rssac-caucus/attachments/20200130/2e4c14f0/attachment.html>