Re: [OPSEC] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-02

On 1/25/13 6:11 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 5:11 AM, Alec Waters <Alec.Waters@dataline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>>> if the third citation is factually incorrect in some fashion it should be dropped.
>>>
>>>        [Waters2011] provides an example of how this could be achieved
>>>        using publicly available tools (besides incorrectly claiming the
>>>        discovery of a "0day vulnerability").
>> If the reference is deemed of value to the draft, I (as author of the reference) can reproduce it at another location minus all the 0day nonsense put in there by the "editors" at Infosec Institute.
> <no hat>
> Personally I think that that would be useful, although another option would be for Fernando to remove the somewhat snide parenthetical…
> </no hat>
new proposed reference created by alec, cited is more than fine.
>> alec
>> -- 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> OPSEC@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>>
> --
> "When it comes to glittering objects, wizards have all the taste and self-control of a deranged magpie."
> -- Terry Pratchett
>
>
>
>
>