Comments inline with [NR] On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 08:40, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6/8/26, 12:28 AM, "Nathanael Ritz" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Independent machine-checked symbolic analysis using ProVerif [REF] >> > This gives too much credit to one individual’s work that is not in a peer-reviewed journal or conference. >
[NR] I think this argument -- or at very least the way it is stated -- is unfortunate. > [...] maybe the first word should be “An …" > [NR] I disagree that the current phrasing gives "too much credit", but I don't think adding an "an" would be unfair. Presuming you are suggesting something like: "An independent machine-checked symbolic analysis using ProVerif [REF]..." -N On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 08:40, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 6/8/26, 12:28 AM, "Nathanael Ritz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Independent machine-checked symbolic analysis using ProVerif [REF] > > This gives too much credit to one individual’s work that is not in a > peer-reviewed journal or conference. Nothing against Nadim, he deserves all > the credit for what he did, but let’s not overstate it. For example, maybe > the first word should be “An …" >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
