On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 10:30:26AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
<WG co-chair hat on> Colleagues, we're on the brink of some major changes to the root server system. ICANN may well take some landmark decisions on this at their meeting at the end of the month. My personal opinion is there is a short (and closing) window for the WG to influence the decisions that may be taken in Seoul. Although yesterday's discussion on the root scaling studies at the WG raised a number of issues, I didn't get a sense that the WG was coalescing around a particular point of view.
So here are my questions:
[1] Do you think we should try to send some sort of statement to ICANN that could be fed into its decision-making machinery? Should this be done for the Seoul meeting?
[2] If the answers to [1] are "yes" what sorts of things should be in that statement?
[3] If the answers to [1] are no, is there anything that this WG should be doing about making some response to the scaling study reports?
Please note too that some of the usual suspects amongst the WG members may be unable/unwilling to comment publicly because of potential conflicts of interest. <WG co-chair hat off>
perhaps it is worthwhile to try and note the differences btween the two reports/presentations. OARC did an empirical study - based on snapshots of a given state for -ONE- operators architectural design. RSST crafted their study more along the lines of a Risk Analysis Tool for the root system overall, not just a server instance. Both are useful/needed. The second study alluded to a problem that will be much more visible in the next nine months, the impact of a much larger response size on the ability of nodes to get a response to a priming query. While not a risk per se to the root system, the collateral damage to the rest of the Internet is real and should not be lightly dismissed by those who have been waiting patiently for many years to see the root zone signed. If the WG decided to do anything wrt sending a note to ICANN, it should include some text about the known risk and making the changes anyway. This is a clearly destabilizing event. --bill