[scg-sec] Cisco's Secondary

[Smith, Donald]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree. A vendor contact on the "inside" the is not an ex-ISPer is better then no contact.


Donald.Smith at qwest.com GCIA
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xAF00EDCC
I reserve the right to be wrong but don't exercise it too often.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scg-sec-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:scg-sec-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Barry Greene
> (bgreene)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:18 AM
> To: scg-sec at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [scg-sec] Cisco's Secondary
> 
> 
>  
> 
> *** PGP Signature Status: good
> *** Signer: Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene at cisco.com> 
> *** Signed: 1/28/04 9:10:13 AM
> *** Verified: 1/28/04 9:38:03 AM
> *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Originally, the "vendor rep" idea was to have ex-ISPer 
> industry reps as the primary/secondary contacts. That didn't 
> work out so well. For example, Vince Fuller is still not in a 
> central position in Cisco to act as a escalation trigger if 
> things get really hot. So I would like to suggest that we 
> drop the "industry rep/ex-ISPer" requirement. We kinda did 
> this already to get Paul on. Plus, talking with Paul it seems 
> like the next logical secondary for Juniper (i.e. someone 
> with his span of control to pull in) would be one of his 
> direct colleagues in development. 
> 
> Q. Are people Ok with this?
> 
> If yes, I would like to nominate Wendy Garvin 
> [wgarvin at cisco.com] from Cisco's PSIRT as Cisco's secondary.
> 
> Barry
> 
>  
> 
> 
> *** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scg-sec mailing list
> scg-sec at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/scg-sec
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBQBfrn0PxB2evAO3MEQIUcwCfeMzfFVUeW1dYXKPPEWIKHxBih+MAmwfZ
/QirOVZgHhky21p/+kZCu1sW
=Zlxb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----