Some editorial nits on the Annex:
3: varies -> vary
3: the data provides -> each data set provides
4: one graphical perspective -> unique graphical perspectives
6: data -> data sets, is -> are
7: includes -> include
25: metrics -> metric
I think these are very valuable, thanks for filling in a gap we have
all
struggled with. I suggest that each of the graphical depictions be
accompanied by a text explanation, as is the case with Fluxing Domains
Detected Proportionately by TLD. Since you put so much time and
effort into
generating the graphs, I would be more than willing to write these
if the WG
thinks they would add clarity.
On 12/4/08 11:14 PM Dec 4, 2008, "Martin Hall" <martinh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
wrote:
My apologies for this being so close to our call tomorrow. The amount
of data our analytics had to run over was gigantic and took longer
than anticipated.
Based on conversations and suggestions to date, I've included 4 data
visualizations for the 8/23 - 11/23 period:
New Fluxing Domains Detected by Date
Total Number of Fluxing Domains Detected by Date
Total Number of Fluxing Domains by TLD
Number of Fluxing Domains per 10,000 Registered Domains by TLD
I'm happy to do the work to turn Jose's numbers into similar charts.
But I'd like the group to tell me that the visualizations I've chosen
look OK or discuss alternatives before I take the time to produce
them
for Arbor's data.
I will also enhance this with additional narrative based on the input
I get from the list and on tomorrow's call.
In line with the APWG report, perhaps I should also include the raw #
registered domains/TLD in here as well?
Comments?
Martin
--
Martin Hall
skype: martin-hall
+1-408-838-2890