Stephen Farrell wrote:
What is still pending on the document?
I guess there were at least a number of minor to middling
issues raised on the list and in Vancouver. Things like
having an abstract description of the signing process etc.
In the Threat Analysis discussions I have been struck by the
difference in clarity and apparent consensus on the issues that
pertain to the core functions, versus those that pertain to the
"policy" functions.
[...]
All of this suggests that de-coupling the TA for the core
functionality, from that of the policy-related enhancements, will be
necessary if we are to stay on schedule.
I think that that may turn out to be the case, but I'd rather
see the next revision and work from there.
My inclination is to include the policy pieces in the TA. If they turn
out to be a major obstacle, then we can decide what to do about that but
we'll need a threat analysis of them at some point and I'd rather not
start out planning to break this into two documents.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org