RE: Minutes from the P1619/1619.1 meetings on May 23rd, 2006
That would be me. The rational is that the main difference between P1916 and
P1619.1 is that P1619 is length preserving and unauthenticated while P1619.1
is authenticate but not length preserving. Variable block size is not a
requirement...
Gideon
-----Original Message-----
From: stds-p1619@ieee.org [mailto:stds-p1619@ieee.org] On Behalf Of james
hughes
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:47 PM
To: Matt Ball
Cc: james hughes; SISWG
Subject: Re: Minutes from the P1619/1619.1 meetings on May 23rd, 2006
Can we not take care of this in the glossary? If Elliott did not
suggest this, who did?
On May 26, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Matt Ball wrote:
> Here is a correction to the minutes from Rob Elliott. Please let me
> know if there are any other corrections.
>
> -Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) [mailto:Elliott@hp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:58 AM
> To: Matt Ball
> Subject: RE: Minutes from the P1619/1619.1 meetings on May 23rd, 2006
>
>
> One update for the minutes:
>
>> Discussion of 1619.1, draft 7:
>> ------------------------------
>> * Rob Eliott suggests to change the name from "variable length" to
>> "not length-preserving".
>
> That wasn't me. I think the name is fine as is...