Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike, Don't the comments from Ran Atkinson regarding the adverse impact on
mobility applications if limits were imposed on TTLs support the claim?


On 6/2/09 9:59 AM  Jun 2, 2009, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I disagree that limits on TTL would impede innovation of volatile networks.
> We have no indication of that from any source, as far as I recall.  I think
> it is better to leave the first sentence, and expand upon it, rather than
> introduce a red herring argument.
> 
> I suggest we delete that last sentence, and instead add a clause up front:
> "As explained in section 5.8, none of the possible options..."
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Rodenbaugh Law
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA  94104
> +1.415.738.8087
> www.rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 AM
> To: Fast Flux Workgroup
> Cc: Marika Konings
> Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9
> 
> 
> Here is proposed text for Section 5.9 (which also would appear in the
> Executive Summary re: Charter Question #9.  Please share edits/comments to
> the list for further discussion/approval at the next FF WG call on June 3.
> 
> 
> Issue
> What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions
> to product and service innovation?
> 
> 
> Response
> None of the possible options noted above were deemed appropriate or
> viable.  Besides their technical or practical limitations, such
> limitations, guidelines or restrictions likely would impede the
> innovation of legitimate "volatile networks" that use short TTLs and
> frequent DNS record updates to deliver their beneficial products and
> services.
>