[cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?
"Novikov, Lev" <lnovikov@mitre.org> Thu, 21 July 2011 16:03 UTC
Return-Path: <lnovikov@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DCF21F8AEC for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUAScCc6Rz4H for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EFE21F874A for <cicm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5457E21B15F5 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imchub2.MITRE.ORG (imchub2.mitre.org [129.83.29.74]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50CCD21B15C9 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.206]) by imchub2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.74]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:03:02 -0400
From: "Novikov, Lev" <lnovikov@mitre.org>
To: "CICM Discussion List (cicm@ietf.org)" <cicm@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:01:55 -0400
Thread-Topic: Why do we need a high assurance API?
Thread-Index: AcxHv4OJVsr//gneRRKX8oANPbLF0g==
Message-ID: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED062D1AB1D7@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?
X-BeenThere: cicm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
List-Id: CICM Discussion List <cicm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cicm>
List-Post: <mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:03:03 -0000
For the benefit of IETF folks who are unfamiliar with this area who will be reading this list during and after the BOF: Why do we need a high assurance crypto API? Please write a brief response that relates to your (or your organization's) experience. Thank you, Lev
- Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API? Cottrell Jr., James R.
- Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API? Davidson, John A.
- [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API? Novikov, Lev
- Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API? Otaway Thomas
- Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API? Davidson, John A.