Ofer, Can we please remove this from WAFECv2 (if it has been added)? I don't have the time or desire to discuss this with WAF vendor(s) since I consider this an ulterior motive of their sales cycle. Neither do I consider seeking a public example for peer review a "complex" request requiring a conference call. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ido Breger <I.Breger@f5.com> Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [WASC-WAFEC] Annexure or Supplement Proposed by F5 To: Christian Heinrich <christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au> Hi Christian, I am a bit confused now, do you need these responses for your job (to help you understand how the F5 WAF performs) or do you want them as part the of WAFEC 2.0 effort ? Do you want to have a short call? -----Original Message----- From: Christian Heinrich [mailto:christian.heinrich@cmlh.id.au] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:44 PM To: Ido Breger Subject: Re: [WASC-WAFEC] Annexure or Supplement Proposed by F5 Ido, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ido Breger <I.Breger@f5.com> wrote: > I'd like to connect you with a local sales engineer that can be available for you for any question on F5 you may have. > Can you please share with the business name so I can hook you with the right team on our side? I know them already and had made contact with them sometime ago. However, if F5 want this supported within the WAFEC then it would be best to produce a public example for peer review? -- Regards, Christian Heinrich http://cmlh.id.au/contact