[dns-wg] WG comment on DNSMON changes

I had been meaning to reply to this but (as usual) time ran away with me.

I’m fully in support of the approach the NCC is taking to DNSMON and the phasing our of the old system. I strongly support keeping historic data available indefinitley and would prefer if this was both raw data and visualisation if I’m honest, this is because if I do want to look at past performance of something in DNSMON this is usually something I want to do quickly and easily without having to process data.

With regard to new zones in DNSMON, I strongly support this, Nominet would like to monitor the GTLD’s it will be serving over the coming months/years.

Brett



On 19 May 2014, at 16:04, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> Colleagues, you might recall that last month the NCC announced a time-line for some changes to the DNSMON service. This was discussed when the WG met in Warsaw last week.
> 
> In outline, the old service is based on TTM boxes which are due to be retired at the end of June. These are already beyond their anticipated life-span. The new version of DNSMON uses the Atlas probes and is already operational. It is possible some users of DNSMON may need to change their internal tools and processes when transitioning to the new platform if these depend on the data gathering done by the soon-to-die TTM boxes. If this affects you, please speak up now!
> 
> I would be grateful if you could express your approval or rejection of the NCC's approach and proposed time-line. Details are at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/romeo_zwart/copy_of_proposed-time-lines-for-phasing-out-the-old-ttm-based-dnsmon.
> 
> There was little to no response by the WG to the earlier announcement. This makes both your WG Co-chairs and the NCC staff uncomfortable. After the WG co-chairs and NCC's DNSMON team discussed this last week, we agreed to set the end of this month as the final date for comments. Although we can work on the operating principle that silence implies consent, it would be better for all concerned if there were positive messages of support (or even ones of objection) on the list. Please respond.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you can comment on the list to indicate that you approve (or disapprove) of the current proposal and/or time-line.
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> 
>