On October 20, 2015 11:08:11 AM PDT, Ray Bellis <ray@isc.org> wrote:

On 20/10/2015 17:58, Romeo Zwart wrote:

 Please keep in mind that for this particular metric 'consistent results
 across all operators' are not necessarily to be expected. As RSSAC-002
 itself also explains, the goal of providing this metric was "to detect
 any trends in the growth of the zone". Of course serious issues like
 truncated zone files are a different thing altogether, but size
 differences related to compression differences could occur.

In between the text Duane quoted, and what you've quoted above, RSSAC002
says:

"The size of the compiled root zone is not expected to change from
operator to operator; but in an effort to ensure consistency in the root
system all operators should report the size of the root zone so if there
are any differe!
 nces
that are seen on the platform they can be identified
and remedied."

To my reading that very much looks like an expectation of consistent
results across all operators.

To be fair, if everyone _emulated_ an AXFR using the given parameters,
that's what you'd get, but if you perform a real AXFR and measure the
results, you probably won't.

FWIW, I endorse the later suggestion that the measurement should be made
on the *uncompressed* zone post AXFR.

Ray


rssac-caucus mailing list
rssac-caucus@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus