Responding to msg by pfarrell@netcom.com (Pat Farrell) on Sat, 23 Mar 8:57 AM
Nothing really new here, the author recorded essentially what I wrote up and posted back in December. But this author has a different viewpoint.
Pat's report was much better, and it's worth wondering why NIST bothered to send out this "unofficial" summary rather than one of its own professional reports. Perhaps to flash the name of a big corporation as evidence of industry input, perhaps to induce paranoia that something else is going on beneath the camouflage and shrewd business better get on board. I'm nasty enough to think that NIST hopes this throwaway will sedate their opponents. Recall that the Administration has not really responded to authentic, open, industry criticism. And seems to be stonewalling in public while making mutually beneficial arrangements favored insiders -- like Martin Marietta, eager to claim, with relief, that nothing of importance happened at the meeting to upset covert deals?