[cgl_discussion] Latest draft on security requirements

Wilson, Andrew andrew.wilson at intel.com
Wed Nov 13 16:21:47 PST 2002


Just a general observation that if we shy away from
including a particular requirement because "there might be
patents," we will have a very short list of 2.0 requirements
indeed -- short, as in the empty list.  We need to write a good
specification that addresses the needs of the market.
Let's worry about doing that first, not about patents.

cheers

atw
-- not speaking for Intel





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list