Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:01:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, akpm@osdl.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
       marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thoughts on kernel security issues
In-Reply-To: <20050112185133.GA10687@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501121058120.2310@ppc970.osdl.org>
References: <20050112094807.K24171@build.pdx.osdl.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0501121002200.2310@ppc970.osdl.org> <20050112185133.GA10687@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1061
Lines: 26


On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> So you would be for a closed list, but there would be no incentive at
> all for anyone on the list to keep the contents of what was posted to
> the list closed at any time?  That goes against the above stated goal of
> complying with RFPolicy.

There's already vendor-sec. I assume they follow RFPolicy already. If it's 
just another vendor-sec, why would you put up a new list for it?

In other words, if you allow embargoes and vendor politics, what would the 
new list buy that isn't already in vendor-sec.

When I saw how vendor-sec worked, I decided I will never be on an embargo 
list. Ever. That's not to say that such a list can't work - I just 
personally refuse to have anything to do with one. Whether that matters or 
not is obviously an open question.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/