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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Greg for your feedback.

1. The original proposal came from Joe St Sauver and you provided some 
commentary to his suggestion. Would it maybe be possible for you and Joe to 
work on a paragraph that would address in a satisfactory way the points 
mentioned by both of you? This could then be reviewed by the group on the call 
on Friday or on the mailing list.

2. I would propose that your suggestion is discussed on the next call.

3. I'll make the change, thanks for noticing.

Best regards,

Marika

On 10/15/08 5:38 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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