[dns-wg] DNSMON changes

+1 turning over historical to DNS-OARC.

>From .ca point of view, we don't need "backwards compatibility" in the new DNSMON tool, which is pretty good BTW. Before DNSMON was just a monitoring tool, now it's a platform for innovation :-)

Jack
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf
> Of Joe Abley
> Sent: June-04-14 12:33 PM
> To: Jim Reid
> Cc: RIPE DNS WG
> Subject: Re: [dns-wg] DNSMON changes
> 
> 
> On 4 Jun 2014, at 12:17, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> > The points made by Peter and Daniel are worth further discussion and I
> encourage you all to do that. On one hand, there could be some benefit in
> providing "backwards compatibility" for visualising old data. OTOH, this may put
> an unreasonable burden on the NCC by creating an open-ended commitment to
> support legacy cruft and result in users who can't/won't migrate to the current
> platform. It would be good for WG members to express their opinions about
> this.
> 
> On that particular point, the important thing is for the data behind the old
> dnsmon to be available, together with a clear description of how it was collected
> and how it is stored (file formats, directory structure, filenames, etc).
> 
> I don't think it's necessary for the NCC to burn devops cycles on making
> visualisations of the old data available, either in exact old-DNSMON form or in
> any other form. If anybody really needs a visualisation of existing data, they can
> make their own so long as the data is available.
> 
> I don't think there's a practical difference between the RIPE NCC making data
> available directly or providing it to DNS-OARC (say) for storage and visualisation.
> Either way would work for me.
> 
> > My personal view is somewhere inbetween: provide some way of visualising
> the old data if that can be done with minimal effort/resources from the NCC on
> a best efforts, unsupported basis. If that facility later dies, it dies and that's the
> end of the matter. YMMV.
> 
> I would like to see a commitment to the data being made available indefinitely. I
> don't like throwing away historical data.
> 
> 
> Joe