RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Line 256

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree it should be deleted.  Thx. 


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 Greg Aaron
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:03 AM
To: 'Dave Piscitello'; 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Line 256


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.