再保险:v 5.4——从戴夫曼

史蒂夫•Christey横切(归属仅供识别:-)写道:> Spaf,您建议一些公司可以独立的官方>语句。如果我们能做到这一点,似乎减少了(有点)>清单从属关系的重要性在一个“专家”的信——>至少对于那些不舒服。也似乎>不会有很大一部分的人将无法列表>所属的(假设一个免责声明)。如果我们有100 >签名,其中90组织联系列表,我不>看到,减少声明的影响太多了。另一方面>,我欣赏,嗯,效用的命名思科等知名>组织。但是如果它可以归结为一种选择之间“没有>思科和凯文Ziese”或“凯文Ziese但没有思科,“个人>我选择后者;-)我的看法:人越多列出他们的关系将会有更多的影响,从外交官,协商这些事情我们可能从未听说过任何个人(就像我们可能从未听说过他们中的任何一个)。更多的公司签署的公司,将会有更多的影响以来政治人照顾大大大$ $在想什么。所以我喜欢这两个部分的想法。但是,我们不希望等待三个星期。所以我建议我们有相当短期限的人签署。 People who can get their company to sign off before the deadline can get the company in that section. People who can't can go in the "individual expert" section. Something like: The following computer security experts have signed this letter:  The following companies have endorsed this letter:  I speak for Silicon Defense, so we endorse the letter FWIW :-) (As usual, the fact that I chair an IETF working group about Intrusion Detection cannot be mentioned, since it might erroneously give the impression that the IETF was taking a position on this issue). And I continue to strongly think that, although Rain Forest Puppy and his ilk do great stuff that I hope they continue to do for a long time, it will not help our cause to have them sign this letter. (Did you notice that some congressperson is now trying to pass a law to prevent security firms hiring ex-hackers?) Stuart. -- Stuart Staniford --- President --- Silicon Defense stuart@silicondefense.com (707) 445-4355 (707) 445-4222 (FAX)