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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

This is an option, particularly if fast flux exploits become a much bigger
problem than they are today.  

ICANN could impose such restrictions authoritatively, in the interest of DNS
security and stability.  

RFC's are not authoritative, are often ignored and sometimes meaningless,
and can be revised if circumstances warrant. 

Thanks,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:07 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9

Dear Mike:

1) So you are suggesting that anyone who wants to use a short TTL would need
to get prior permission?

2) Who would run such a white list, and under what authority?

3) Are you also suggesting that the DNS RFCs that deal with TTLs should be
changed?  

All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:38 PM
To: 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


Not necessarily.  Innovation is not necessarily stifled by regulation.
Banks are heavily regulated, yet they are managing to innovate in mobile
spaces.  If mobile operators had to get on a whitelist in order to use super
fast TTLs, I imagine they could live with that and be unaffected in their
future innovation (once they get whitelisted).  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:23 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Diaz, Paul; Fast Flux Workgroup
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] DRAFT text for Section 5.9


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.
>