[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] The Definition of Fast Flux

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

One of my action-items is to kick off an email thread for us to work 
on the definition of fastflux some more.
I went through the MP3 this morning, extracted what I thought were 
the major points made and took a stab at summarizing them on the wiki 
page (scroll down, my stuff is below Eric's).  Here's the link;
https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?initial_draft_definitions

When I was in the call, I felt like there was less agreement than I 
did after re-listening.
-- Proposal:  remove references to intent from our definition of 
Fastflux.  On re-listening to the conversation, I didn't detect a 
strong demand to include intent in the definition and a lot of good 
arguments for removing it.  Let's have a discussion about that.  I'm 
leaning in favor at the moment.
-- Proposal: let the solution drive the definition.  One approach is 
to let the solution-defining continue for a bit and let that inform 
the definition.  My instincts tell me that this isn't terrible, but 
runs the risk of "hammer looking for a nail" or "if we build it they 
will come."  So I'm neutral on this one.
-- Proposal: let the definition allow for "slow fast flux".  Rod 
pointed out that some people use all the same techniques, but don't 
do the constant-IP-changing part and that we shouldn't limit our 
discussion/proposals just to "fast."  My initial reaction (in Paris) 
was a scope concern, but now that I've had the benefit of the last 
couple weeks of email, I think we could handle the scope issue and 
agree with Rod that we don't want to be so narrow that we exclude 
solutions that would address this broader case.  So I'm leaning in favor.
Have at it,

m


voice: 651-647-6109
fax: 866-280-2356

web: www.haven2.com