Re: [Tools-discuss] Server Transition Briefing

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD123A1746 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 bqLDhUrcG5ax for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8CEB3A1772 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DEB300B4F for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:59:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PFjylCI7C8PR for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D9B9300B2E; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:59:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <258C4639-AD13-4524-9680-DFD7EC5A4C0F@vigilsec.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:59:05 -0400
Cc: IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF41B337-D532-4928-AC59-919AB62DF100@vigilsec.com>
References: <3729CE09-D13F-436D-A917-0DEF91348E31@vigilsec.com> <258C4639-AD13-4524-9680-DFD7EC5A4C0F@vigilsec.com>
To: Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/MF82XjM0PU8ZKxwz01xdM7tBMic>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Server Transition Briefing
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:59:12 -0000

Here is a summary of the discussion on the call that took place on March 11th.

Russ


= = = = = = = =


IETF Tools Team Discussion with the Community on 11 March 2020


The IETF Tools Team held a one-hour WebEx session on the server
transition that took place on 22 February 2020.  The goal was to share
information about the changes in the server architecture over the last
decade and the most recent upgrade.  Then, with this context in mind,
hold a discussion with the community.

The slides about the server history were sent out in advance, and they
can be found in the mail archive at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/X5Wy2WlA5oUV7SoNSm2Fson5tDU/

Some questions got the discussion started after the briefing.  The first
two questions were discussed together.

Q1. How can the approach to monitoring/alerting be more transparent?

Q2. How to ensure monitoring/alerting covers the end user experience?

It was suggested that the IETF LLC pay for monitoring at status.io,
pingdom.com, or newrelic.com to provide everyone with information about
whether the IETF services are up or down, the percent of availability
over time, and so on.

It was suggested that the IETF LLC pay for Splunk reviews of the server
logs to help find performance issues.  For example, right before the
Internet-Draft cut-off date, review of the logs might highlight ways
to improve the user experience.

There was a desire to automate spot checking of email messages flowing
through mailman into the mail archive.

Q3. How to improve the infrastructure for testing?

It was suggested that all of the traffic against the system be collected
for a day, then use that to determine whether changes are improving the
user experience or otherwise.

Q4. What are the next steps toward separation of services to reduce
fragility and increase flexibility?

It was suggested that the IETF leverage things that are available in the
market wherever possible.  That is, avoid building custom software where
possible.

It was suggested that public cloud services should be used instead of
private cloud services.

It was suggested that microservices be explored.  An OpenID Connect or
OAuth 2.0 identity provider could be used to enable microservices.  Some
things that might be migrated to microservices are the Internet-Draft
repository and the Datatracker database.

Wrap Up: Was this discussion useful?  If so, how often should we hold a
similar discussion?

People felt the discussion was useful, and it was suggested that they
be held quarterly.