<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 6 May 2020, at 15:51, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" class="">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Thanks Jeff. In general, I would be concerned about OLD data versus CURRENT data.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Some times OLD is better in this theme. For instance, DNS captures from before QNAME minimisation became prevalent had more information on second-levels associated with a possible TLD than current captures.</div><div>So, the value of data needs to be taken at its real value, which is not just a function of time. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>