On Sun, 2008-27-07 at 14:50 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I disagree that this is the wrong list for such questions. This does, after > > all, pertain to exam development, and the question is generalized enough > > that > > it shouldn't violate any non-disclosure agreements. And yes, I agree that > > exam candidates should know about libata. That's why I'm wondering if it's > > covered by the new version of the exam. > > I think that this is a reasonable forum for discussing exam objectives and > the > concept of drivers, libata for example, is reasonable. The question is, for > what exam?
I agree. > I was asked to join this list to discuss the upcoming Security specialty > exam. > I would think that the exam process would start with fleshing out the > detailed > objectives. To date I have not seen any proposed list of detailed objectives > for the Security specialty exam and I can't find anything like it on the web > site. > > What is the status and proper method for proceeding for the security exam > development? There was a brief discussion on security topics to add to the draft objectives, plus I got feedback from a couple of TAC meetings and some affiliates of LPI. I'm a little slow but I want to get a draft of them out this week. However, if you want to throw out your ideas of "must haves" please do so. At this point, nothing is excluded. We add everything (that isn't completely unrelated or unreasonable) and let the JTA survey tell us what isn't really germane to the exam topic. Regards, --matt _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
