At 9:59 +0200 7/10/03, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Being the person responsible for the agenda for the September meeting, I hereby ask for agenda items, and general input.
Please catagorize this under "general input." ;) At the last meeting, DNS lameness was a topic. Unfortunately I have not dedicated enough time on my end to make significant progress on my part, but I am wondering if there has been some in other areas. (It's still 6 weeks off, so maybe I can do something.) Recommending an approach to stamping out lame delegations is a high goal, and I think finding a "grand unified approach" that satisfies all is too big of a first step. Two smaller steps that I think are attainable are: 1) Defining what is meant by the word "lame" in the operational context - given that "lame delegations" are used in IETF RFCs to describe a state that is a subset of the operational problem. 2) Defining a way to measure the extent of the problem. I.e., Given a zone: How many delegations, NS RR's, and servers are present? What % of zones cannot be contacted at a given a moment? What % of servers ... the same. What % of NS RR's are a problem... Note that #1 really is needed before #2 - because, what is a "problem?" ;) One comment on this is that I think we can answer steps 1 and 2 given different registry policies. E.g., some registries are happy simply if you can get an answer from a delegation. On the other hand, some registries won't be happy unless the responsible person answer mail and that the MX RR does not refer to an open relay. I'm suggesting that this might be a seed of an agenda item (but I can't now promise to deliver an agenda item). PS - Ordinarily, being policy neutral is a goal of any engineering effort. Perhaps though, it would be good to go the other way - try and describe various policies so that we each have a broader view. Shrug. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer ...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...