Discuss mailing list

[Alex Hanselka <alex AT opennicproject.org>]

I agree with this idea.  I don't want to punish people who are communicative 
and cooperative, but when they just vanish, they might should be removed! :)

On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Peter Green <peter AT greenpete.co.uk> wrote:

> I've noticed two or three on the T2 list that have been dead for a while,
> one since February!
> 
> I think if a server goes down, or is not resolving one or more T.L.D.s and
> the operator doesn't respond to contact from OpenNIC members, their server
> should be removed from the list after 2 weeks.
> 
> I would like to see all T1 and T2 servers have at least a web page (if not
> a site, and obviously T1's do), in which you will find at least an up to
> date contact address (some T1's don't seem to have a contact address) and
> possibly more, like server stats and a blog communicating the state of the
> server etc.
> 
> I feel if dialogue is being made and an op' is having problems but IS
> communicating with the OpenNIC community then removal should be open ended.
> After all OpenNIC is a very helpful community, there's no need to hide away
> from problems.
> 
> Reliable servers and operators are necessary for OpenNIC to be a quality
> service that is taken seriously by the world.
> 
> As an example, the T2 that Jonathan and I run has this web page;
> http://opennicproject.org.uk/
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On 15.08.2012 05:16, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> 
>> It seems that occasionally we get new folks signing up to run a public
>> server, then fall short on the commitment of actually running the
>> service. There is such a case right now where someone created a new
>> server which went offline again shortly afterwards. There was no
>> notification of trouble on the mailing lists, and the person has failed
>> to respond to personal emails.
>> 
>> In the past, one of us have simple removed such servers from the listing
>> after some random period in which we finally notice the outage.
>> However, with all the other automated tools we have been developing, it
>> seemed appropriate to create an official policy regarding the forced
>> removal of these servers. When someone checks the wiki pages to choose
>> which public servers they wish to use, we want those choices to reflect
>> servers that are generally reliable.
>> 
>> There are three situations that should be addressed. The first is when
>> the server simply stops responding to DNS queries, and appears to have
>> gone offline completely. Of course not everyone monitors their servers
>> on a daily basis, and there could be situations such as when the admin
>> goes on vacation. There could also be issues with their internet
>> provider. In most cases, I would expect the admin to at least notify
>> the mailing list if there is an extended problem that they are trying to
>> fix. However when there are no notifications and the admin cannot be
>> contacted, I would like to propose that their server be automatically
>> removed after 14 days.
>> 
>> The second situation is when the server is online, but failing some of
>> the zone tests. Again there are a lot of factors to consider, but the
>> concern is that their server is not responding reliably to all queries,
>> and users of that server will not be able to reach all OpenNic domains.
>> This situation has more pitfalls, but in the end it comes down to making
>> sure the users get the answers that they expect. So I would also
>> propose a 14-day grace period for this situation.
>> 
>> The third situation is overall reliability. If a server only answered
>> queries 50% of the time, you wouldn't want to use it. Because we are
>> recording test results for each server, we can create a historical
>> profile to rate the reliability. I think the easiest way to score a
>> server would be to check the percentage of passes over the last X days.
>> So how many days do we want to look at, and at what percentage do we
>> consider the server unreliable? As an initial starting point (and
>> because conflicting rules between the first and second situations would
>> make programming tricky), I am going to suggest removal if a server
>> drops below 66.7% in 60 days. That is an extremely lenient score, but
>> it would actually remove at least seven tier-2 servers immediately.
>> 
>> There is currently no code in place for automated removal of dead
>> servers, but if we can create a policy for their removal, it would
>> provide a guideline for the admins to manually trim the list down.
>> 
>> --------
>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
>> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by 
> emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org