Re: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London

"Guangqing Deng" <dengguangqing@cnnic.cn> Fri, 14 February 2014 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dengguangqing@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083101A0174 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:30:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FSL_NEW_HELO_USER=0.668, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLm7UcyiYjrY for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2FFD41A0158 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: dengguangqing@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO user-think) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:30:25 +0800
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:30:30 +0800
From: "Guangqing Deng" <dengguangqing@cnnic.cn>
To: "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <52F9A377.1080008@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 0, 108[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2014021416302937189415@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart011070616858_=----"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H3_b6Q-fB6p79QKu7_46GBbktFM
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:30:33 -0000






 
 Hi, Tim, I would like to request a time slot of 15 minutes to discuss the topic on optimizing DNS authority server placement. As we know, the geographical distribution of DNS authority servers (include root, TLD and other authority servers in the DNS hierarchy) highly affects the financial costs (such as server, energy and bandwidth costs) from the DNS operator's point of view and also the DNS resolution latency from the DNS client's point of view. Let us consider the following question: when hundreds even thousands of potential deployment locations are given, which locations (may be several or tens of) should be selected to deploy DNS authority servers of a specific DNS zone (for instance, .CN) so that the DNS resolution delay is minimized while the financial costs do not exceed their budget? It is not easy to answer this question though fundamentally we think that those locations with low financial level and close proximity to DNS clients should be selected. To the best of our knowledge, there is still no rigorous authority server placement approach yet and thus most DNS operators just choose locations according to their personal experience. 

Due to DNS attacks like DDOS attack, the deployment of DNSSEC as well as the launch of new gTLDs, more and more authority servers will be deployed and thus we think it makes sense to discuss this topic in DNSOP WG. On the following meeting, we would like to discuss use cases and two approaches proposed by us on this topic. 



Any suggestions? 

Look forward to see you soon in London!


 



Guangqing 
Deng
CNNIC  From: Tim WicinskiDate: 2014-02-11 12:13To: dnsopSubject: [DNSOP] Call for agenda items for London 
 
Greetings,
 
London is less than a month away, and we should start soliciting agenda 
items.  I requsted a 2 hour session instead of the normally tight 1.5 
hours, and they gave us Friday Morning for 2.5 hours.  I attempted to do 
some horse trading with httpbis as they liked that slot, but nothing 
quite worked.
 
We already have some time for the privacy drafts floating around, 
especially discussing the requirements.  But feel free to email us with 
suggestions, requests, etc.  As we did in Vancouver, we've been given 
some latitude from our great and glorious AD to be more open in what we 
accept.
 
thanks
tim
 
 
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop