Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Section 5.8

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'll kick this off before Rod and Greg begin their presentation on 2009
phishing activity:-)

Is the answer to this question already addressed to some degree among the
"who is harmed?" and "who benefits from?" questions we have already
answered?

For example, it seems the report already talks a great deal about the issues
related to limiting values for TTLs. It seems we've already said that
limiting TTLs would :

- negatively impact beneficial application of TTLs in volatile networking
applications? 
- impact fluxing attack networks to some extent but not sufficiently so to
eliminate the malicious use?

Do we want to tackle the question of whether registrars should limit how
frequently registrants may change TTLs? Ran Atkinson's enlightening comment
regarding mobility applications seems to give us at least one application
that would be adversly affected, yes?

What about fees for TTL changes? Looking at old threads, I see we talked
about the fact that fees would not generally deter criminal activity (they
are using someone else's money).


On 5/14/09 9:57 AM  May 14, 2009, "Marika Konings"
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Please provided your feedback on how section 5.8 (see current text below)
> should be addressed.
> 
> ===========================
> 
> 5.8          What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing
> limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or
> registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux
> hosting?
> 
> Any attempt by the WG to answer this question is deferred until the next
> Constituency Statements and public comments, particularly requested on these
> points, have been received and reviewed by the WG.
> 
>> o  There was support for:
> 
>> Proposed solutions may include limitations, guidelines or restrictions on
>> registrants, registrars and/or registries, designed to mitigate the
>> occurrence 
>> and longevity of fast flux attacks. At that point, the WG might make an
>> assessment of need for proposed solutions, balanced against the potential
>> impacts. 
> 
> 
>