On 19/08/2019 16:38, Paul Hoffman wrote:
This is possible if the Metrics WP also changes "latency" to "response latency" and "staleness" to "publication latency". The two documents would then align, and the community would more likely understand that there are two types of latency.
That works for me.
This is problematic. There is no readily available in-server metric and/or log that contains this information.
Creating the metric is trivial. In fact, there is already a Twitter account that exists pretty much for it.
Indeed, but that Twitter account is maintaining copies of the root zone, and then performing a "diff" each time it changes. This requires state. Since receiving an XFR is an autonomous function of a name server (and which is stateless in the case of AXFR) capturing the change count at each RSO would require additional software and/or systems, and in theory they should all just give out the same answer anyway. If it were to be done, just have the RZM do it (but see below).
That view seems reasonable to me, but then it would argue for the removal of the root zone size metric as well.
The theory was that a large zone *might* affect stability, therefore it's important to know the history of the zone's size. AFAICR, 002v3 removed the requirement for every RSO to measure the root zone such that only the RZM has to report it. There's no formal archive of the "root zone history" run by either IANA or the RZM, although DNS-OARC maintains an informal one. The zone size metric is therefore the most easily obtainable official public measure. cheers, Ray