Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] DNS Weather Report 2004-09-07

[Daniel Roesen <]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:11:20AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Daniel sent these messages to multiple mailing lists and he did not
> take the hint when his messages were not re-distributed to nanog;

I _did_ take a hint as someone pointed my to the possibility that
NANOG auto-filters crossposts. Except for things like the CIDR
report. I also _did_ take a look at NANOGs list policy which says
that crossposts are discouraged, but not forbidden.

> So I decided to give him another hint,

You call that a hint?

Many people have many options. I've got about 20 private feedback mail
to the report, many of them from operators in charge of the analyzed
zones, well-known names of the DNS scene and even large european TLD
operators who asked me to do a similar report for their own TLD.
Except some IXP operator who has a personal agenda, you were the only
one complaining up to now. _This_ is a hint for me.

> > Next to that, it is quite apparent that the operator(s) in question
> > are not really watching their own infrastructure, which is basically
> > their work, at all.... that gives one to wonder...
> 
> I agree. But why do regular messages about this belong into the mailbox
> of all subscribers of all the lists Daniel posts to?

Be assured that NANOG, ipv6-wg and v6ops are for sure not the only
lists I post to. But those are lists directly relevant in regard to
the analyzed zones and reach the relevant audience, demonstratedly.

> > > It would have been more acceptable to say something like:
> > > "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it?
> > > If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here." 
> > 
> > Indeed, where can I request to signup for this as I think it is very
> > useful ....
> 
> Daniel?

There is now a distro list at:
http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/dns-report

Nevertheless, having the report posted to a wide audience is important,
as operators may notice situations where they want to take action.

And the report has demonstrated it's success very well. Compare the
first report three weeks ago:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/2004/msg00192.html
with the upcoming report. Breakage everywhere, now all fixed.

The CIDR report is posted weekly to upteen mailing lists, but is
actually about a political/social/economic problem, not even a
technical like infrastructure DNS zone breakage. Do you consider it
as spam too? If not, can we say "double standards"?
Hint: the CIDR report is posted to wide public for the very same
reasons as the DNS Weather Report. And I'm actually sure you know
exactly what those reasons are.


Regards,
Daniel