nanog mailing list archives
RE: potential hazards of Protect-America act
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:28:05 -0600
Pretty good in the generalities, but there are few finer technical points that could be been precisely and accurately stated. One that comes to mind was the MD5 reference, another was the "50% loss" when talking about performing an optical split. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of michael.dillon () bt com Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 2:47 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: potential hazards of Protect-America act I wonder if this is on topic? <http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf> Among other things, it discusses technical hazards of the act. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- potential hazards of Protect-America act michael.dillon (Jan 29)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act James R. Cutler (Jan 29)
- RE: potential hazards of Protect-America act Frank Bulk (Jan 29)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 29)
- RE: potential hazards of Protect-America act Frank Bulk (Jan 29)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Warren Kumari (Jan 30)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 30)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Warren Kumari (Jan 30)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 29)
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Sean Donelan (Jan 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: potential hazards of Protect-America act Henry Linneweh (Jan 31)