On Aug 19, 2019, at 1:11 AM, Andrew McConachie <andrew.mcconachie@icann.org> wrote:
The purpose of this mail is to solicit feedback on whether a new version of RSSAC002 is needed. If you feel there is a compelling reason for the RSSAC to produce a new version of RSSAC002 please reply all to this email. Please explain the reason why and which measurement(s) you believe should be altered.
Please reply all to this email by September 1, 2019.
It seems worthwhile creating a v4 for the following reasons: - v3 uses the term "latency" in a way that that is very different from that which the Metrics Work Party is. In the v3 document, "latency" is the delay in publication of a new root zone, whereas in the Metrics WP document, "latency" is the amount of time it takes for a response to a DNS query to be received. The latter is the much more common usage of "latency" in the DNS world. The Metrics WP document uses "staleness" for the concept from v3. I propose that v4 start using "staleness" to match the more common usage in the DNS world. Note that the metric doesn't need to be renamed: it remains "load-time", which is different than either "latency" or "staleness". - To make it clearer that root zone size is not being measured by the RSOs, I propose moving that entire discussion to its own section. - A second root zone metrics that might be measured is "number of records changed". It will always be at least 1 (for the SOA), but it might be useful to know how many root zones are just changing the SOA versus changing actual data. - The DNS community would probably like to watch the adoption rate for QNAME minimization. To measure that, I propose a new RSO measurement: number of queries that are single-label requests that result in NOERROR responses. The latter part would eliminate effects of things like Chrome asking for more names. I recognize that this idea might not be popular for RSSAC, but it would be one of the best ways for the DNS community to measure uptake of the protocol. --Paul Hoffman