Attendees: 

Sub-Group Members:   Adam Smith, Elaine Pruis, Elise Gerich, Jeff Neuman, Jeffrey Eckhaus, Kim Davies, Patricio Poblete, Paul Kane

Staff:  Bart Boswinkel, Bernie Turcotte, Grace Abuhamad, Brenda Brewer

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Recording

Proposed Agenda:

1)  Introduction/Overview of where we are – Paul Kane

2)  High Level Review of the document (WORD):

  • Comments by Kim
  • Comments by Adam

3)  Review of EXCELL Spreadsheet developed by Kim of remaining outstanding issues for the SLE with Adam’s comments – Joint review with the DTA/SLE Group

4)  Anything else that should be covered?

5)  Next Steps / Ideas???

  • Private session with SLE Sub Group to review recommendations
  • Finish SLE Document – Jay to lead if possible as Adam needs to step back.

Notes

Notes/Action Items 

1. Introduction

·  Lise of attendees (per Adobe room) + Adam Smith on audio

·  12 meetings of SLEWG subgroup. 

·  Comprised of Kim Davies (ICANN-IANA), Adam Smith (SLA expert from CDNS); Bernard Turcotte for faciliatation. 

2. Review of the Word document

Walkthrough presented by Kim Davies

3. Review of Excel spreadsheet

Next steps per issue identified below: 

  • Issue #1: DTA Working group to redraft the background section. 
  • Issue #2: Verify that the language in the document is synchronized with the language in the flowchart.  
  • Issue #3: Proposed language is accepted. 
  • Issue #4: measure and report catV but no SLE
  • Issue #5: same as #4
  • Issue #6: each run of test is a separate SLE measuring point
  • Issue #7: No merge.
  • Issue #8: no need for independent measurement
  • Issue #9: current version of doc ok for all
  • Issue #10: all agreed with suggestion
  • Issue #11:  no resolution - mailing list discussion
  • Issue #12: agree with suggestion
  • Issue #13: agree
  • Issue  #14: SLEWG to review tables proposed by Kim
  • Issue #15: no resolution - mailing list discussion
  • Issue #16: agreed

Documents

DTA_SLE_20150806-1.pdf

DTA_SLE_Outstanding_Issues_AS Response.pdf

Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer: (8/17/2015 12:40) Welcome to the SLE-WG Meeting on 17 August @ 18:00 UTC.

  Bart Boswinkel (staff): (12:59) Hi all

  Bart Boswinkel (staff): (12:59) Just in listening mode

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:01) hi all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:03) 18:00

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:03) UTC

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:10) This is also unsynced so you can scroll through and zoom in using the controls at the bottom of the screen

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:11) I uploaded a "clean" version, but the version circulated by Paul last week had track changes.

  Paul Kane: (13:14) Thanks Grace

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:15) Brenda is uploading the documents to the Wiki so that they are easily downloadable and accessible. Will post the link here shortly.

  elise gerich (epg): (13:25) text from c)  C.    For the purposes of designing the Service Level Expectations, the current process is simplified to six key stages for all change requests (notification is implicit in each stage):a.          Accept change request submissions from customers;b.        Verify the change passes documented technical verification checks;c.  Obtain consent from relevant contacts to proceed with the change;d.          Verify the change request meets policy and procedural requirements;e.          Obtain authorization from NTIA to proceed with the change;f.        Implement the change and notify the change requester of completion of the change.

  elise gerich (epg): (13:30) that text is copied from the word document

  Kim Davies: (13:30) Tech check is (b)

  Paul Kane: (13:31) Thanks Elise.  I am trying to understand why it is dropped from SLE

  Kim Davies: (13:34) Its worth considering whether it passes or fails doens't impact the SLE, it only impacts whether it needs to be remediated, which is customer time so not subject to having an SLE

  elise gerich (epg): (13:36) Paul, re your question about why dropped from SLE - perhaps we should go back to the principles to see how relevant this process step is.

  Kim Davies: (13:36) "Time for root zone changes to be published following completion of validations and reviews by IANA Functions Operator" is the measure for "Verisign" time

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:41) reminder - if you have completed your question please lower your hand

  Kim Davies: (13:42) Patricio's concrete suggestion is to add a new assumption that all IANA processing time is accounted for

  Patricio Poblete: (13:43) Correct

  Patricio Poblete: (13:43) I was assuming this was so, but it would be good to make it explicit

  elise gerich (epg): (13:45) Patricio, I think it is explicit in the principle #2 - Overall times.

  elise gerich (epg): (13:45) 2.    Overall times. Notwithstanding the previous principle, there is value in overall metrics being reported to identify general trends associated with end-to-end processing times.

  Patricio Poblete: (13:47) Not sure "overall metrics" is equivalent or includes that

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:52) sorry Jeff killed your hand

  Jeffrey Eckhaus: (13:52) re-raising

  Jeffrey Eckhaus: (13:52) no problem

  Grace Abuhamad: (13:55) Dear all -- Need to drop off to join another call. Bernie and Brenda will support the rest of the call.

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (13:56) What if something that today seems abnormal, tomorrow becomes the norm?  I am assuming that the review process can move a category V into another catergory

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (13:56) which can have an SLE

  Elaine Pruis-Donuts: (13:57) +1 I want to know when i'm dealing with an outlier

  Elaine Pruis-Donuts: (13:58) ( I mean to say, if my case doesn't fit in 1-4 according to SLEs) I want to see that status. Yes what Kim said :)

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:59) Paul the call was scheduled for 1 hour which we are coming up to - we have the possibility to extend if the group wishes it- please advise

  Kim Davies: (13:59) I can do 30 mins

  Brenda Brewer: (13:59) That is fine here.

  Patricio Poblete: (13:59) No problem here

  Jeffrey Eckhaus: (13:59) i can go another 15 -30 minutes

  elise gerich (epg): (13:59) Yes, I can do 30 min

  Paul Kane: (14:00) Thanks all

  Elaine Pruis-Donuts: (14:05) measure it, the small amount of time will help the overall average ;)

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (14:07) But is "all other" held to an SLE

  Kim Davies: (14:08) Yes!

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (14:09) ok....if "all other" has the SLE, I am not as concerned about have an SLE for all of the component parts of the "all other"

  Jeffrey Eckhaus: (14:10) sorry , no strong opinion here either - i defer to the majority

  Jeffrey Eckhaus: (14:15) All - need to drop off the call. thanks for all the hard work on this

  Paul Kane: (14:15) Thanks Jeff

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:17) we have  a call potentiaqlly scheduled for 18:00 UTC tomorrow (same time as today) - shall we agree to meet at that time

  Jeff Neuman (Com Laude): (14:18) I need to drop as well.  Lets do the call tomorrow as scheduled

  Paul Kane: (14:19) ok - thanks Jeff

  Kim Davies: (14:22) Sorry Adam for attributing them to you :)

  Kim Davies: (14:28) Its worth noting that IANA is required to provide audit data to allow others to calculate things.

  Patricio Poblete: (14:29) I agree with Kim on this.

  elise gerich (epg): (14:29) Thank you for the support, Patricio on #15.

  Elaine Pruis-Donuts: (14:31) excellent call thanks much

  Patricio Poblete: (14:31) Good bye everyone

  bart Boswinkel (staff): (14:32) Paul soem have already indicated they want a call

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:32) bye all

  Kim Davies: (14:32) cheers

  • No labels