bmanning at bmanning at
Sun Apr 5 13:34:51 CDT 2009

On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 06:19:35AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2009, at 12:09 AM, bmanning at wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 07:37:15PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>
> >>The fault has been rectified.  We are still looking into the
> >>underlying cause and what procedural changes need to be made to
> >>prevent a repeat occurance.
> >>
> >>Mark Andrews, ISC
> >
> >	could ISC be a bit more open and transparent on what the
> >	underlying cause was, the path/steps between cause and effect,
> >	and the range of options/choices for mitigation and why the
> >	one chosen (presuming it was a procedural issue) was/is the
> >	best choice.
> You should definitely demand your money back. Given the root servers  
> don't provide this level of accountability, not sure why you think ISC  
> should.

	i think I shall.. 
	as far as I can tell, the root server operators have never claimed
	their services/operations are open & transparent.  ISC (well Paul
	on behalf of ISC) has claimed they are open and transparent.

> Stuff happens.  If you've chosen to share fate with ISC for name  
> resolution via DLV, then you should accept that it does and anticipate  
> these sorts of outages.  I'm sure the folks at ISC will attempt to  
> minimize reoccurrence.

	in fact it does.  that does not negate the desire to know 
	-WHY- stuff happens - a few of us are less than happy with a
	"it was broke, we fixed it, we'll try not to let it happen again"

	in this regard, I have been very impressed with Rich's documentation
	of the IANA alternate root.  the processes are well documented and 
	clear ...  and to date, he's been pretty responsive when hicups occur
	and provides prompt feedback.

> Regards,
> -drc

More information about the NANOG mailing list