RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Revised Draft Fast Flux Initial Report

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Marika, and thanks.  Here are three points for consideration.

 

1.      Lines 1079-1080: If material is to be inserted here, a draft needs
to be circulated immediately for discussion.  No actual language was ever
proposed, much less agreed to via survey question #49.

 

       2.   I think there is a false conflict expressed in lines 1014-1019.
The RyC quote refers to fundamental changes to DNS, such as changing the way
TTLs are passed along in the DNS and how they are cached, and fundamental
changes to registration paradigms and technologies, such as authenticating
nameserver changes.  (See lines 1734 ff.)  In one example, if you want to
fundamentally change how TTLs work, you'd have to change the RFCs and change
code.  These points have not been refuted in the WG as far as I recall.   

 

The contrary statement talks about inserting additional record types into
DNS records, for use by intervenors.  That is a separate topic entirely.  

 

Inclusion of the word "required" at line 1017 is also problematic.  That
line talks about a possible solution, but no authority has "required" it,
and using "required" lends it a weight it has not been granted.  

 

I suggest the following language instead:

 

"The RyC points out that some of the solutions discussed by the Working
Group "are currently impossible, or would require significant revisions to
DNS protocols, or would require significant upgrades in deployed resolver
code".   Working Group members have described possible solutions can be
implemented using existing record types and the existing/deployed resolver
code base, so that protocol changes and changes to installed software is not
required. See for example: 1020
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00085.html.";

 

  3.  I found a missing word.  Please add "and" at Line 643, to read: "The
RyC's answers to question 3 and question 7 are of interest in this context."

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:40 AM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Revised Draft Fast Flux Initial Report

 

Dear All,

Please find attached the revised draft Fast Flux Initial Report. This
version includes (in track changes):

*       Changes adopted by the Working Group in earlier meetings (normal
track changes) 
*       Changes adopted in agreement by the Working Group (highlighted in
green) 
*       Changes supported by the Working Group (highlighted in yellow) 
*       Alternative views (highlighted in grey)


For your information, I have also posted a summary of the results of the
survey on the wiki. In the end, 14 people participated in the survey namely:
Joe St Sauver, Greg Aaron, Randal Vaughn, Dave Piscitello, Paul Diaz, Rod
Rasmussen, Wendy Seltzer, Eric Brunner-Williams, George Kirikos, Rodney
Joffe, James Bladel, Kal Feher, Zbynek Loebl and Mike Rodenbaugh (note that
Eric Brunner-Williams only provided some comments and did not submit a vote
on any of the questions).

Both documents can be found on the Wiki (
https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?fast_flux_pdp_wg) and will be
discussed at the next meeting of the Fast Flux Working Group coming Friday
17 October.

With best regards,

Marika