[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[redhat-lspp] Re: RHEL5 Security Guide draft TOC for review/comment
- From: "David O'Brien" <daobrien redhat com>
- To: fedora-selinux-list-request redhat com, "NSA_SELinux List" <selinux tycho nsa gov>, "redhat-lspp redhat com" <redhat-lspp redhat com>
- Cc: James Morris <jmorris redhat com>, Tomas Mraz <tmraz redhat com>, Stephen Smalley <sds epoch ncsc mil>, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge gmail com>, Karsten Wade <kwade redhat com>, David Howells <dhowells redhat com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper redhat com>, Forrest Taylor <ftaylor redhat com>, Thomas Woerner <twoerner redhat com>, Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin redhat com>, Harald Hoyer <harald redhat com>
- Subject: [redhat-lspp] Re: RHEL5 Security Guide draft TOC for review/comment
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:11:39 +1000
top posting...
I've received a number of replies to this, offering suggestions and review
time, etc. Thanks to all.
I'll start collating comments and suggestions from everyone and put together a
revised TOC.
I have a number of volunteers for SELinux, which is great, so I'll have to ask
that people nominate a "focus-area", be it Policy, Troubleshooting, End-user
Control, Administrator Control, whatever. That way people can check out the
appropriate file and have their way with it, without fear of treading on
toes.
thanks everyone for the feedback and offers to help.
David
On Friday 28 July 2006 11:51, David O'Brien wrote:
> Firstly, apologies if you receive this twice. I'm casting a wide net...
>
> I've attached the draft TOC of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Security
> Guide for all to review and comment on. (Despite appearances it's not
> supposed to be a valid xml file; I wrote it that way for my own
> convenience.) As mentioned in the Scope Statement (attached), this is the
> integration of the RHEL4 Security Guide and the SELinux Guide. Our focus
> for this release is on accuracy and use cases, at the expense of low-level
> details.
>
> Please feel free to make any suggestions about structure, topics, etc., how
> we could use/enhance this info from other areas (Training?) or vice versa.
>
> I have a few names down for reviewers, authors/editors, etc., (see comments
> in file) but am looking for more. If there is an area where you feel you
> could contribute, please put your hand up. All contributors will be
> acknowledged and included in the colophon, and earn our undying gratitude.
> :-)
>
> cheers
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]