[rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input
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 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>. 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 <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
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. 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. 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). Regards as On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 14:00 Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu> wrote:
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 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>.
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 <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
Hi Arturo, thank you very much for the feedback! See my responses inline: From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com<mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:16 PM To: Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input 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 On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 14:00 Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>> wrote: 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<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>. 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<mailto: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<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
On 10/02/2016 16:45, Steve Sheng wrote:
Hi Arturo, thank you very much for the feedback! See my responses inline:
From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com <mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:16 PM To: Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu <mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input
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. I think it would be nice to reintroduce software diversity when ripe NCC took on the responsibility of k-root. Im not sure of the history myself but i was lead to believe that at this point most if not all root servers where running bind which prompted RIPE NCC to work with NLnet labs to produce NSD
John
I think it would be nice to reintroduce software diversity when ripe NCC took on the responsibility of k-root. Im not sure of the history myself but i was lead to believe that at this point most if not all root servers where running bind which prompted RIPE NCC to work with NLnet labs to produce NSD
Thanks John. This diversity is recorded on page 27 of the report. "In early 2000s, there were increasing concerns about the lack of diversity in name server software. The RIPE NCC partnered with NLnet Labs to design and develop an authoritative name server (NSD)50 from scratch. The RIPE NCC contributed requirements, input to the design and lab testing to the initial development of NSD. NSD was deployed on K-Root in 2003." Best, Steve
John
On 11/02/2016 14:14, Steve Sheng wrote:
I think it would be nice to reintroduce software diversity when ripe NCC took on the responsibility of k-root. Im not sure of the history myself but i was lead to believe that at this point most if not all root servers where running bind which prompted RIPE NCC to work with NLnet labs to produce NSD
Thanks John. This diversity is recorded on page 27 of the report.
"In early 2000s, there were increasing concerns about the lack of diversity in name server software. The RIPE NCC partnered with NLnet Labs to design and develop an authoritative name server (NSD)50 from scratch. The RIPE NCC contributed requirements, input to the design and lab testing to the initial development of NSD. NSD was deployed on K-Root in 2003."
Great thanks Steve i missed that. John
Hi, A minor refinement on this occurs to me… On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org> wrote:
I think it would be nice to reintroduce software diversity when ripe NCC took on the responsibility of k-root. Im not sure of the history myself but i was lead to believe that at this point most if not all root servers where running bind which prompted RIPE NCC to work with NLnet labs to produce NSD
Thanks John. This diversity is recorded on page 27 of the report.
"In early 2000s, there were increasing concerns about the lack of diversity in name server software. The RIPE NCC partnered with NLnet Labs to design and develop an authoritative name server (NSD)50 from scratch. The RIPE NCC contributed requirements, input to the design and lab testing to the initial development of NSD. NSD was deployed on K-Root in 2003."
IIRC the concern was less about limited diversity in name server software than about limited diversity in open source name server software, i.e. the root server operators have always had a preference for open source because of the auditability it provides: it's always possible to see what your software is doing. This seemed important for the root, both for debugging (serving the root is sometimes a corner case) and for general transparency. Both BIND and NSD are open source to this day. Other quality open source name server code bases have also appeared since those days, but I won't attempt to list them in case I leave someone out! best, Suzanne
Hi Suzanne, Thank you for the input. We will work to address your feedback! Best, Steve On 2/19/16, 8:03 AM, "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
A minor refinement on this occurs to me…
On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org> wrote:
I think it would be nice to reintroduce software diversity when ripe NCC took on the responsibility of k-root. Im not sure of the history myself but i was lead to believe that at this point most if not all root servers where running bind which prompted RIPE NCC to work with NLnet labs to produce NSD
Thanks John. This diversity is recorded on page 27 of the report.
"In early 2000s, there were increasing concerns about the lack of diversity in name server software. The RIPE NCC partnered with NLnet Labs to design and develop an authoritative name server (NSD)50 from scratch. The RIPE NCC contributed requirements, input to the design and lab testing to the initial development of NSD. NSD was deployed on K-Root in 2003."
IIRC the concern was less about limited diversity in name server software than about limited diversity in open source name server software, i.e. the root server operators have always had a preference for open source because of the auditability it provides: it's always possible to see what your software is doing. This seemed important for the root, both for debugging (serving the root is sometimes a corner case) and for general transparency.
Both BIND and NSD are open source to this day. Other quality open source name server code bases have also appeared since those days, but I won't attempt to list them in case I leave someone out!
best, Suzanne
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:
From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com <mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:16 PM To: Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu <mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org <mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input
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
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 14:00 Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu <mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>> wrote:
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 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>.
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Hi Alejandro, Thank you for the input. We will work to address your feedback! Best, Steve From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alejandro Acosta <alejandro@lacnic.net<mailto:alejandro@lacnic.net>> Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:42 PM To: "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input 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: From: <<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com<mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:16 PM To: Tripti Sinha <<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input 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 On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 14:00 Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>> wrote: 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<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>. 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 <mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org> steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus _______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
Dear RSSAC Caucus, The review period of the RSSAC report on History of Root Server System is concluded. In total, we have received eight comments. The RSSAC met and addressed all the comments (see attached). The RSSAC will incorporate these changes and make final edits to the document. Thank you again for your feedback! Best Steve From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:56 PM To: Alejandro Acosta <alejandro@lacnic.net<mailto:alejandro@lacnic.net>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input Hi Alejandro, Thank you for the input. We will work to address your feedback! Best, Steve From: <rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alejandro Acosta <alejandro@lacnic.net<mailto:alejandro@lacnic.net>> Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:42 PM To: "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input 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: From: <<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com<mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 7:16 PM To: Tripti Sinha <<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>>, "rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>" <rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [rssac-caucus] DNS Root Server System history - input 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 On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 14:00 Tripti Sinha <tsinha@umd.edu<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>> wrote: 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<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rssac-publications-2014-05-12-en>. 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 <mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org> steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus _______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org<mailto:rssac-caucus@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
participants (6)
-
Alejandro Acosta -
Arturo Servin -
John Bond -
Steve Sheng -
Suzanne Woolf -
Tripti Sinha