<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Line 256
- To: "'Dave Piscitello'" <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Fast Flux Workgroup'" <gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Line 256
- From: "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:02:33 -0400
That line does seem like a remnant from an earlier draft...
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:42 AM
To: Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Line 256
I'm reading the the draft final version as I add my assigned action items.
Line 256 says:
The WG wishes to emphasize that fast flux needs better definition and more
research.
Does the WG still believe this is accurate? As written, does this undermine
or dismiss the efforts the report makes to distinguish volatile networking
from fast flux attack networks.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|