On 10/23/2013 1:18 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
Dave,
The one NIST standard that has been identified as suspect did not follow
the open solicitation
and review processes to which I alluded.
Thanks for the clarification; I had obviously missed that rather basic
point.
A consequence of having /any/ occurrence of undue influence is that it
tends to prompt a broader concern about the entire process. Doesn't
matter whether it should; it does. The brand is tainted.
So it would probably be helpful for (re-)establishing trust in the
typical, open NIST process to formulate some sort of affirmative
analysis of its quality assurances practices and track-record, with a
specific eye on its prevention of inappropriate influence.
At one level, it's inherent in saying "open", but the details of actual
practice -- in particular a track record of aggressive and independent
multi-participant critical review -- would give flesh to the bones of
saying "open".
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
perpass mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
