Hello,
I loved reading the document. it's great.
But as usual, there still room for improvement, I don't like
looking for perfection but if we can improve a little we should do
it. I personally learned a lot while reading it.
Here few comments:
1) In section 2. "History of Root Servers" I think we should be
more descriptive, tell more history, give more context, what the
problem was, problem distributing of the hosts.txt file,
limitations, scalability, things like that. Saying this, IMHO I
believe the history in the document can be better organized. It's
a kind of shocking that it starts talking about the RFCs and just
in the second paragraph it jumps into implementation of the first
root server. I believe our target is technical people but the
document is about the History of DNS. I wonder if we could include
things like how much time took the first developments, how many
people was involve, language program used for, etc. I personally
enjoy these details
2) In few parts of the documents it's mentioned that (for example
A-Root) is one of the 13 logical Internet Root Servers......, also
in 2.7 under the "Adding Root Letters", this information is
terrific!, I would love to expand in why the "limitation" is 13?.
It's mention Maybe this is not history but this is something that
probably is not widely well explained. I don't think this point is
particularly relevant, I just wanted to mention it just in case.
3) What do you think about dedicating a small paragraph about what
DNS label compression is.., this concept is mentioned twice in the
document. I might be wrong but my guess is that many people don't
know about this.
4) I agree with Arturo's comments
5) And finally, I wonder if at the end, along with the appendix we
could add something like an infographic [1] image
Regards,
Alejandro,
El 2/10/2016 a las 12:13 PM, Steve Sheng escribió:
Hi Arturo, thank you very much for the feedback! See my
responses inline:
Hi
I really enjoyed reading the document. I am not
young but unfortunately I wasn't yet there to have
much of feedback.
In all the initial tables 1-2 the software was
included, later in 3 there isn't any mention. I wonder
if this is because there isn't information or if it
wasn't consider relevant anymore.
Mostly it was considered not relevant anymore. The first two
tables were to show software diversity in the root server
system, and how it moved from mainframe to Unix and from JEEVEs
to BIND.
Before moving to Section 3 it would be good to have
a simple table summarizing the 13 root servers (you
have the table at the Appendix but I think it would be
interesting to have it at the end of the section as a
nice conclusion.
Instead of duplicating 5.1, one way to address it to add a
sentence or two in section 2.8 pointing to Appendix 5.1. But we
will give more thought on this.
I know that you provide the statements verbatim
from the operators, but there are some that do not
read as well as the rest of the document. Could you
ask some of the operators to rewrite a little some of
the statements or provide them with some editorial
suggestions?
The ones that I really like and could be used as an
example are B, F, I and M. The ones that I suggest
some rewrite are A (J it is much better and less
commercial. A it is like a PR statement ...) For
others I will suggest to make it more about the node
history, why it was important to deploy and not so
much about the people (which are important but not
central to the document).
Noted!
Regards
as
Dear
Caucus,
In
September 2015, the RSSAC held its first
workshop to discuss issues related to the
evolution of the root server system. The
public report of the successful workshop is
available on the RSSAC publications
page.
To
prepare for the workshop, the RSSAC compiled a
document outlining the history of the root
server system. This document provided a
foundation for informed discussions at the
workshop. The RSSAC has further reviewed the
document since the workshop. Before publication,
the RSSAC would like to seek input from the
Caucus on this document.
The
RSSAC would like to propose a process for Caucus
review of the draft history of the root server
system document. Through
04 March 2016, the RSSAC invites Caucus
members to review the draft for factual
correctness. At the end of the 4 week review
period, the RSSAC will determine if further
Caucus review is necessary before proceeding
with publication. Please send your input
directly to
Steve Sheng at
steve.sheng@icann.org.
The
RSSAC hopes robust Caucus review will
strengthen this important document on the
history of the root server system. Please do
not hesitate to contact us with any question
or concerns. We look forward to your
contributions.
Best
regards,
Tripti
Sinha and Brad Verd
RSSAC
Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
rssac-caucus mailing list
rssac-caucus@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
_______________________________________________
rssac-caucus mailing list
rssac-caucus@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus