Re: [security-services] Status re Gross response [Was: RE: [security-services] Agendafor 1-Mar SSTC con-call]

If someone can explain the issue, I
can respond ( I have volunteered before).

Maryann

"Linn, John" <>

03/01/2005 07:58 AM
        

        To:
       "Philpott, Robert" <>,
<>

        cc:
       

        Subject:
       [security-services] Status re Gross
response [Was: RE: [security-services] Agenda for 1-Mar SSTC con-call]

Re:

 

>We
had planned to entertain a motion to move the Thomas Gross response document
to CD status (sstc-gross-sec-analysis-response->01.pdf).
 But as per the 1-Feb con-call, we were going to provide Thomas Gross
a copy and provide him an opportunity to respond.  >I
do not recall an AI nor saw any mail to him from someone to do this.  So
do we still wish to move this to CD status?

 

Early in February, Prateek
sent a message to Thomas; he responded shortly thereafter indicating interest
in reviewing the SSTC document.  I don’t believe that I’ve seen
any further discussion on it since then (from Thomas or within the TC),
however. 

 

Paging through the -01 .pdf
 now, I see a couple of editorial fine points:

 

Line 84: “security services”
-> “security service”

 

Line 167, delete comma following
“specifications”

 

--jl