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

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

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:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com

---

From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:36 AM
To: Linn, John
Cc: Philpott, Robert; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
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" <jlinn@rsasecurity.com> 03/01/2005 07:58 AM

To:        "Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>, <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>         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