Greetings again. In the RSSAC Caucus meeting two weeks ago, we were told that there as a document covering service level agreements and expectations on RSOs. It seems likely that the document overlaps with the extensive Caucus work on metrics and thresholds that went into RSSAC047, so it would be good if we could discuss it here in that light. Is this document moving towards the Caucus soon? Will there be a Work Party for it? Or... ? --Paul Hoffman
On Aug 5, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings again. In the RSSAC Caucus meeting two weeks ago, we were told that there as a document covering service level agreements and expectations on RSOs. It seems likely that the document overlaps with the extensive Caucus work on metrics and thresholds that went into RSSAC047, so it would be good if we could discuss it here in that light. Is this document moving towards the Caucus soon? Will there be a Work Party for it? Or... ?
This document is being developed by the RSOs, in the RSSAC. It quotes and references the Caucus work. It refers to the documents that have been produced by the Caucus (e.g. RSSAC047) and does not add any additional technical metrics. The GWG has the responsibility of describing the organizational structure of the RSSng. We will be offering this document to the GWG in an effort to help them with the RSO's view of what we would like to see in a future SLE and/or SLA. It is functionally outlining our thoughts on the subject. We expect that the GWG process is likely to include public review of anything it proposes.
--Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Aug 6, 2020, at 10:27 PM, Fred Baker <fred@isc.org> wrote:
On Aug 5, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
Greetings again. In the RSSAC Caucus meeting two weeks ago, we were told that there as a document covering service level agreements and expectations on RSOs. It seems likely that the document overlaps with the extensive Caucus work on metrics and thresholds that went into RSSAC047, so it would be good if we could discuss it here in that light. Is this document moving towards the Caucus soon? Will there be a Work Party for it? Or... ?
This document is being developed by the RSOs, in the RSSAC. It quotes and references the Caucus work. It refers to the documents that have been produced by the Caucus (e.g. RSSAC047) and does not add any additional technical metrics.
That sounds fine, but because the document has SLAs and SLE, I imagine that it also has thresholds. The threshold calculations for three of the four metrics were heavily discussed and debated with Caucus members, which is why I asked about Caucus involvement with the document.
The GWG has the responsibility of describing the organizational structure of the RSSng. We will be offering this document to the GWG in an effort to help them with the RSO's view of what we would like to see in a future SLE and/or SLA. It is functionally outlining our thoughts on the subject.
Excellent. But there is no desire on RSSAC's part to have the Caucus also share our views on the same topics?
We expect that the GWG process is likely to include public review of anything it proposes.
Sure. The Caucus can respond then if we as a group do not give input to the GWG now. --Paul Hoffman
On Aug 7, 2020, at 7:30 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
This document is being developed by the RSOs, in the RSSAC. It quotes and references the Caucus work. It refers to the documents that have been produced by the Caucus (e.g. RSSAC047) and does not add any additional technical metrics.
That sounds fine, but because the document has SLAs and SLE, I imagine that it also has thresholds. The threshold calculations for three of the four metrics were heavily discussed and debated with Caucus members, which is why I asked about Caucus involvement with the document.
Paul, At this point in the draft SLA/SLE document, the SLE thresholds are just a copy-paste from RSSAC047. For SLAs all the thresholds are "TBD" with the exception of correctness, which of course remains at 100%. In my personal opinion, I fully expect these to remain TBD when the document is shared with the GWG. All of the effort thus far has been in getting the wording right and none of it has been about choosing any particular SLA thresholds. DW
On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:39 PM, Wessels, Duane <dwessels@verisign.com> wrote:
On Aug 7, 2020, at 7:30 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
This document is being developed by the RSOs, in the RSSAC. It quotes and references the Caucus work. It refers to the documents that have been produced by the Caucus (e.g. RSSAC047) and does not add any additional technical metrics.
That sounds fine, but because the document has SLAs and SLE, I imagine that it also has thresholds. The threshold calculations for three of the four metrics were heavily discussed and debated with Caucus members, which is why I asked about Caucus involvement with the document.
At this point in the draft SLA/SLE document, the SLE thresholds are just a copy-paste from RSSAC047.
For SLAs all the thresholds are "TBD" with the exception of correctness, which of course remains at 100%. In my personal opinion, I fully expect these to remain TBD when the document is shared with the GWG. All of the effort thus far has been in getting the wording right and none of it has been about choosing any particular SLA thresholds.
Thanks, this is very useful information! If that continues to be true, there is probably not much that the Caucus could help on in drafting the document. --Paul Hoffman
Thanks, this is very useful information! If that continues to be true, there is probably not much that the Caucus could help on in drafting the document.
Hi Paul, Adding I think one more data point: the purpose of the document is not technical (aside from referencing/copying 047 like others have said), but rather from the business side of things: what would look acceptable to existing RSOs to consider signing once one comes out. As Fred said, it's really just a business/contract-side thought exercise with zero new technical work in it. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
as long as we're piling on: Wes Hardaker wrote on 2020-08-07 15:40:
Thanks, this is very useful information! If that continues to be true, there is probably not much that the Caucus could help on in drafting the document.
Hi Paul,
Adding I think one more data point: the purpose of the document is not technical (aside from referencing/copying 047 like others have said), but rather from the business side of things: what would look acceptable to existing RSOs to consider signing once one comes out. As Fred said, it's really just a business/contract-side thought exercise with zero new technical work in it.
for my part, if anything comes up that exceeds the state of the 047 technical art, i will urge that it be brought to the caucus. -- Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaig...>
participants (5)
-
Fred Baker -
Paul Hoffman -
Paul Vixie -
Wes Hardaker -
Wessels, Duane