-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 17:19 +1000 22/7/97, Andrew Donald wrote:

>Look, this is out of control.  Who says that 300ms has any meaning to the
>people who will pay for the service?  What right do we have to determine
>what QoS they should get?

To the general public, the DNS is a critical Internet protocol. When it
stops working people lose the ability to access internet services. Is it
not the responsibility of ADNA to ensure the DNS within the domains under
its umbrella is maintained in a reliable and functional state?

It would, IMHO, be irresponsible of ADNA not to define a minimum quality of
service for providing DNS services. In the draft selection criteria this
was done by requiring a permanent 64k connection to the Internet. This does
not offer any guarantee of the quality of the services offered, as a single
person browsing from the DNS's LAN can saturate the link.

By defining the quality of service requirement as the time taken to respond
to a DNS query, and defining the percentage of the time that this quality
of service must be met, the prospective DNA knows exactly the minimum level
of quality they must provide. This does not prevent them from offering a
higher quality service in order to attract a greater market share.

 ...Richard.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Public Key: <http://interdomain.net.au/~rha/pgpkey.txt>

iQCVAwUBM9RwtTXPU7enfNnZAQEvzwQAmM2G0Ljk6fsSz7gF83K5FOYxre8oERif
ZQ8onmTMyiKU5d90Enr3nIJ99jEwE/G2ReiVOP5p7mDIYtxkMYH1km++rhlqojTR
ulH8NJYUMTXu0E/feDrGgllJeHE7rxODkrunCMbeF22adLLwzt/mIve1KF5ZLiQ9
IEwqceRl7LM=
=SJnu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----