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

Hi Maryann – I don’t think
there’s really an issue.  I was just pointing out that we were going to
give Thomas a chance to respond before we moved it to CD status.  I forgot
about the message going to Thomas and his response.

 

Did the message to him include a copy of
the document as well?  

 

If so, we should follow up with him to ask
when he might have a chance to respond with comments; then we can determine
whether we want to hold off on the CD vote.  If we didn’t provide him a
copy, then we should send him the current one and give him an opportunity to
respond before we vote.

 

Can we take you up on your offer to volunteer
and to serve as the go-between?

 

Thanks,

Rob Philpott

Senior Consulting Engineer 

RSA Security Inc. 

Tel: 781-515-7115 

Mobile: 617-510-0893 

Fax: 781-515-7020 

mailto:

From: Maryann Hondo
[mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:36
AM

To: Linn, John

Cc: Philpott,
 Robert; 

Subject: Re: [security-services]
Status re Gross response [Was: RE: [security-services] Agenda for 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