Originally Posted by
gerrycan
I implied error - the erratum statements show error. The clue is in the name.
Sorry, I took "forced" to mean they did not do this willingly.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
The column 79 connection is exactly where NIST focused. Moreso in the tech briefing than the report, granted.
Exactly.They did not attibute the failure to that one connection in isolation.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Which one?
There is no "one". This is where you go wrong.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
And there you go again telling people to stop.
Yes, stop looking at a complex problem in the eyes of only one aspect.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
So you reckon NIST modeled the connection correctly. You're entitled to that opinion, but it remains just that - your barely asserted opinion.
They modeled it the way they saw fit and published their reasoning. It maters very little to me in the broad scheme because I've not seen anyone present a better hypothesis.
Do you guys plan to some day or are you happy trying to show some aspect of the NIST wrong?