[dns-wg] Proposed criteria for adding new zones to DNSMON
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Aug 14 16:04:12 CEST 2014
On 14 Aug 2014, at 14:45, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote: >> The NCC may well want the WG to be the one to say yes or no whenever a new >> "customer" comes along. > > IMHO, this is a very bad idea. For more than one reason, e.g. timeliness of > decision, definition of criteria, potential for arbitrary outcome based on > whatever, lack of interest/involvement,... Wilfried, I'm sorry if my response gave you that impression because that's not what was envisaged. Well, not in my mind at any rate... You are of course absolutely right the WG should have no say in operational matters. And not just for the reasons you outlined. Micromanagement by mailing list simply can't work. So the WG won't be doing that. :-) What I hope we arrive at is a situation where a framework is agreed by the WG. The NCC implement that and report on how things are going at regular intervals. If/when the framework needs to be tweaked -- say for a new class of customer or to add more gTLDs per NCC member -- this comes to the WG. The WG will not need to be consulted at all when a new customer that already meets the current criteria asks for DNSMON. If that customer does not meet the prevailing criteria, that's when the WG should be in the position of making the yes/no decision by either changing the criteria or not. The WG shouldn't be asked to decide if Customer X gets added or not. I expect the discussion would be something like "Customer X meets category foo. DNSMON does not serve that category. Should the NCC include foo? Here's what a yes/no answer will mean.". >> Personally I think it's crucial the WG has a role in defining the scope of >> the service. > > Agreed. But this sounds pretty much like AP, where the community defines the > rules or "policy", and the NCC implements it. That's the objective here too. > "Sharing" the responsibility for decisions seems to be cumbersome, at least. Indeed and that's why this is not what is expected to happen to DNSMON. The WG would do the "policy" aspects and document them -- which IMO shouldn't need the full force of the PDP sledgehammer -- and the NCC be left to implement those as it sees fit. I hope this clarifies things or offers something for the WG to chew on.
[ dns-wg Archives ]