Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

R Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On  16 Dec 2008, at 19:16, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>> Thanks for the conclusion, but the talk here is about 2 documents.
> 
> Actually, as the Subject line and my quotes from my very first note
> made clear, all of my notes have solely been responses to the
> *OPsec meeting minutes*.
> 
> I object to the assertions in those minutes that:
>     - the SHA approaches are better/stronger than MD5 approaches.
>           [We have agreed that the evidence does NOT support such a
>           claim -- which claim appears to be in the meeting minutes.]
> 
>     - the WG should recommend/encourage/promote SHA approaches
>           over MD5 approaches. [which claim again appears to be
>           in the meeting minutes]

Just as a point of order, I looked at the minutes and audio and I think
their existence in the dialogue as stated in the minutes is accurate, if
not work for word.

>> What you seem to state is whether a particular crypto algorithm is
>> better than the other for the IGP cases.
> 
> I can't parse that, so I don't know what you mean.
> Please re-phrase.
> 
>> Please raise the issues in the correct forum.
> 
> I have been all along.  Please discontinue incorrect assertions
> that this is not an appropriate forum for discussing items in
> the OPsec WG meeting minutes.  All day I've been raising operational
> security issues within the OPsec WG.
> 
>> If my language is not clear, do let me know if we can discuss the same
>> in Hindi, Kumaoni, Gujarati or any other language that I know. I am
>> sorry I am not as well versed in English. :))
> 
> Fair.  Each of us do our best.  :-)
> I am a polyglot [RFC-2130], but I also don't know any
> south Asian languages, terribly sorry.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
> 

_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec