On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Alan & Susan Mead wrote:
%< cut >%
> >! This brings up another issue: we should discriminate which concepts and
> >acronyms we are using at what level. For higher levels we will be using
> >names that need not be known at the lower. I propose to add a new section
> >for each level we make, so the current draft should be headed by "Level
> >I".
>
> This is a good point. However, I vote no about "higher levels" because
> (1) who will decide what is level 1 and what is level 2, etc.?
WE do. That is, as the L.II test objectives will be developed at the
end of this quarter, we will be using new concepts, that should be added
to the list. I see no good reason why these should be lumped together
with the ones that cover L.I : people maintaining the tests or studying
for L.I are not supposed to deal with the advanced stuff there. Of course
on the reverse, both writers and students for the higher levels can use
all the lists up to that level.
> (2) the jargon shouldn't be a big difference between levels (wisdom,
> integration, better familiarity with details, etc.)
I am concerned with new concepts that have not been addressed at the
lower level. Like the details of the OSI model. I expect the
higher-level parts to be smaller.
> But as I recall, L3 exams are specializations and it would make sense that
> there will be all kinds of new jargon and acronyms that shoudl have
> different (expanded) lists. It would be most natural to label the lists by
> content. This could be the system administration list. There could be a
> security list, a networking list, etc. One for each L3 exam.
That seems OK. I hesitate to do this for the L.I exams: the division
between exam 1 and 2 is arbitrary (topics have been shuffled until we got
2 exams of equally-sized content); and I hate to sort it out for the
distribution-specific part. OK, maybe a Slackware guru does not
necessarily need to know about the existence of .deb packages, but hey,
they are not living on an island either. So I suggest to keep one list
for all L.I .
%< cut >%
> >At SMB: ...
%< cut >%
> Yes..... point well taken. I expect I have numerous such errors. If I
> have gotten something wrong, it would be most helpful if you would supply a
> proper definition/description of a sentence or two. Because if I got it
> wrong the first time, I think chances are excellent that I will screw it up
> again.
Sorry, I should have proposed an improved definition.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)
Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters
NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. 31-204080204
Amsterdam e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
