Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02

To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
From: Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:34:47 -0500
Delivered-to: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <013401cefa87$eb740020$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Tom,

You're right that 4949 should be the preferred starting point forsecurity terminology.


Steve

References:
- Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Scott Brim
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Ted Hardie
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Scott Brim
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Jari Arkko
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Dave Crocker
- RE: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: Stephen Kent
- Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02
  - From: t.p.