Re: Revised Draft Comments

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

At 05:27 PM 12/23/96 -0700, Brian Pollack wrote:
>With all of the different view points, technical levels, business 
>concerns, and other issues, I think that the revised draft is
>starting to cover most issues for most people fairly well.  I have
>a couple of other issues that I was not clear about from the
>draft or the discussion on this list.
>
>1) A major concern for us, and many other people, is the service level
>that is provided by the registries.  The revised proposal touches on 
>this subject, however, in light of our experiences with NSI, I think that
>this section can be expanded.   Here are my thoughts:
>
>   a) There should be minimum requirements that the registry must meet
>   for telephone and fax support.  A registry should be able to provide
>   a level of telephone and fax support consistant with that of any other
>   utility provider, such as the power company.
>
>   b) Registries should be able to meet a multi level support system
>   designed by CORE.  For example, the registry might be required to
>   have a second set of technical people that automatically start working
>   on problems after x number of days, and a core group of people that
>   are available to deal with other registries and CORE to resolve 
>   problems, ie.. alternate phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.
>
>2) I am not sure about outside the US, but in the US just about ever local
>Joe with a couple of dollars or a good sales pitch has 2 T1 lines right now,
>and a name server takes about 15 minutes to setup with a few clicks of the
>mouse and some values from a README file.  I would like to see the
>requirements changed or registries "Rated" for capacity and capability. Here
>are some ideas about the requirements that I think are more than fair:
>
>   a) The applicatant should have have to run multiple nameservers in multiple
>   physical locations with independant connections to the Internet backbone.
>
>   b) The applicatant should be able to provide they are able to keep a
>   reliable internet connection in place.  An internet service provider that
>   has been running a backbone for several years, IMHO, is more likely
>   to be able to keep servers running.  This includes name servers and 
>   customer access servers (web, email, etc...)
>
>   c) The application should have programmers on staff that understand the
>   concepts behind DNS and its implementation.  The applicatants should
>   be able to adjust to new standards and technologies developed by CORE
>   without waiting for Microsoft to release "DNS for Registries".
>
>These are just some of my ideas on how to make sure that customer 
>service is an important issue.  Unfortunatly, there are going to be people
>for a long time that will go with the local registry and get burned unless
>measures are put in place to make sure that does not happen.

Excellent ideas, but how do you translate them from being very subjective to
be very objective?  If we turn away an applicant due to your item (c) he/she
might sue claiming they do understand DNS since they have been using the Web
for the past year.  How do you "test" someone and give them a DNS grade?


>
>-- 
>Brian Pollack
>Head of Research and Development
>Global Center/Primenet Services for the Internet
>
>
Hank Nussbacher
IAHC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other IAHC members]