Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Definition V4.2

[RLVaughn <RL_Vaughn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe St Sauver wrote:
> Randy mentioned:
>
> #> I understand changes to network nodes and name servers, but whta are
> #> "proxy targets"?
> #
> #Motherships - too squishy and UFOish to me.  Well, that and my
> #Anglish went with the last of my neurons.
>
> UFOish, I like it :-)
>
> #"Malicious content back-end servers" or maybe just "back-end servers"?
> #Somehow those phrases also seem poor candidates.
>
> The wording question may be moot because I don't think the 
> non-publicly-visible back-end servers flux (unless/until they (rarely)
> get identified and booted).
Most likely.  How about phrase truncation?  I understand Mike has some
recent chainsaw "trunk"-ation experience.

> Have you seen a multi-tier fastflux network, where visible front end
> hosts reverse proxy for a 2nd tier, which also fluxes, before ultimately
> reaching a static backend server?
> Regrads,
I did regrad, twice.  Then the money ran out and I had to figure
out some form of support other than Dad;)

> Joe
The closest is hydraflux for fast flux which cycles through several
backend servers.  The bottom of that food chain would, of course, be visible
only to those with well-placed microscopes.

Well then, we do have storm.  As you know, storm NS proxy, most of the time,
to their ISP's name servers.  A few exceptional storm NS in consumer space were 
not proxies (8 out of 16,000 AFAICR).  If my thinking hat is on straight, those 
 exceptions could either be the current storm name servers or merely forwarders 
to static storm name server(s).
Static backend servers are "Somebody else's problem" in any case.

Removing the offending clause is not a great concern.