Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

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]

> 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