Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-04.txt
> I don't understand how changing to a shorter TTL (from 1 day to 5 > minutes) reduced the RTT. Seems backwards. Good catch. You're right: it went from 5 minutes to 1 day. Will fix it. /giovane ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] updated draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-04
Folks, So we've presented the -03 version of our draft at IETF104 in Prague. Thanks everybody for their feedback, sure help us to improve the document. We worked on a new version of the draft, which yon can find at: * https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-04.txt For each comment on the mic during the DNSOP 104 session, I created an issue on Github[0], which points to the exact moment during the session (Youtube recording) when the issue was raised. See the individual issues to see how we addressed them in the new version of the draft. The major changes are: - 's/recommendations/considerations/' : As pointed by Liman[1], the word "recommendations" is too strong, and may lead to an unintentional reduction in the diversity of setups of authoritative servers. As such, we replaced the word for considerations. Besides, other documents such as RFC7626[2] use the word consideration instead. - Recommendation on TTLs (R5, now C5) was completely re-written based on new study (to be online soon), as well as on Peter Koch's feedback: as Peter reported[3], previous experience on TTL recommendations on DNSOP did not get consensus. Hope this new section and study fix most of his and other folks concerns. - Title changed to " Considerations for Large Authoritative DNS Servers Operators" , well noted by Stephane Bortzmeyer[4]. Note that we plan to change the draft name as well if/when gets adopted as a WG document. There are several other changes as shown in the issues fixed. As usual, feedback is always welcome. thanks, Giovane on behalf of co-authors [0] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed [1] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/issues/14 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7626 [3] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/issues/17 [4] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/issues/11 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-02
Folks, We have a new version of our draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-02.txt We will present it for the first time to the WG in Prague. As always, feedback is much appreciated. Major changes: - 's/anycast site/anycast instance/g' to conform to RFC8499 (and added this ref) - Addressing comments provided by Kristof Tuyteleers (some sens were not clear enough) Github URL: https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations thanks, /giovane ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] update 01 on draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations
Folks, We've just published a new version of our draft at: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-01.txt Thanks again for the reviewers of version 00. Major changes: * Fixed scope: folks pointed that our recommendations (such as use anycast) were not for everyone. We added text and focus on "large operators", "those with a significant global user population" * We have enumerated 00 reviewers' comments in [0]. Each comment is labeled as [RF:AB01], where *RF: review-fix *AB: reviewer's initials *01:reviewer AB 01 comment * We then annotated our version -01 with such labels, indicating *where* we fixed it. These labels will be later removed. * The most 'complicated' comments were turned into "Issues" on Github; we can see how we addressed them in [1]. As always, we're looking forward for some nice reviews. thanks, /giovane [0] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/blob/master/reviews/reviews-dnsop.md [1] https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/issues ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Request for Adoption (draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations)
> I run authoritative servers for about 500 small domains, but I suspect > I am not the operator you are looking for. First, thanks everybody for reviewing the draft, lots of valuable feedback in these comments. Now, the first thing we need to do (as pointed by multiple reviewers) is to define which kind of operator we have in mind. This is not clear in the document at this stage; however, what we thought was: large, TLD-like DNS operators. These are the ones who can afford large scale anycast deployments. Smaller operators still can benefit from one or two recommendations, but not all of them. We'll take this into account and work on a new version, also addressing the other reviewers' comments. Thanks very much, /giovane ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Request for Adoption (draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations)
Folks, We have a new draft and we'd like to ask the WG to adopt it: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations/ This is an informational draft that presents recommendations for authoritative DNS operators, based on research works we have been conducting over the last few years. We are using Github to edit this draft as well: https://github.com/gmmoura/draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations Thanks, /giovane ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
