On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Karl Reuss <reuss@umd.edu> wrote:
On 1/29/20 8:33 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
we have dispensed with 'site' and 'location' as relationships which would define a 'portion of' as a 'root server instance', and that's good (says me).
Personally, I'm not ready to give up on location/site as part of the RSSAC definition for instance. When we're at an RSSAC meeting discussing instances, location is the primary way we identify them. I really liked the plain language Wes used in his recent definitions and i'm concerned your more technically accurate definition will confuse much of our RSSAC audience.
I don't think the instance description or methodology needs to be uniform. After all, an instance is only ever an instance of a *single* root-server's anycast footprint. E.g. you can say "instance X of b.root-servers.net", but not "instances at location X", since those are apples to oranges comparisons. The naming scheme used by any particular root server operator's instances should be left up the the operator. The only real requirement is that for any particular operator, their instances should be named uniquely, but I think everyone will agree that is only sensible. Insisting on a uniform naming is only going to cause problems, and IMHO doing so (uniform naming) accomplishes nothing particularly useful. Brian