Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> writes:
Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hmm... Maybe, but I think my comments are in line with comments
I've made previously. It's possible that my comments don't
agree with Russ's, of course.
They don't. When the issue of what does or does not need to be in the threat
analysis came up back in August, I very specifically asked for guidance as to
what did or did not belong in there. I did so because I was confident that no
matter what we put in the document someone would come along with a differing
view and tell us we had it all wrong. I therefore wanted to get on the record
what was, and more important wasn't, needed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "needed" here. If by "needed", you
mean "required to get Russ to approve your WG", that's one thing.
If by needed you mean "having an adequate analysis of the problem",
that's quite another. What I'm saying is that I think you have
an inadequate analysis of the problem.
With regard to the rest of your message, I don't really want to
get into a bunch of hermeneutics about Russ's message. Suffice
to say that I don't agree with your interpretation of Russ's
message as conflicting with mine.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org