Ok, I'll work on it.
On 19.04.18 17:51, Adam Roach wrote: > On 4/19/18 04:39, Eliot Lear wrote: >> I think this is definitional. The idea in the preceding text really is >> that once the vendor sets this, they really have no intention of >> updating even CERT-based issues. This is another instance where >> operational experience could provide us guidance between MAY and SHOULD. > > > My experience includes situations such as Microsoft officially > discontinuing support of Windows XP in 2014, and yet releasing a > security patch for it last year. While this is exceptional, it's not > unheard of. If you want to define "support" to mean something in this > document other than the way major vendors do, I suggest including a > clear definition in this document, as readers are likely to make the > same inferences as I did. > > /a > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
