On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Doug,
I'm not clear if you're saying that these comments are on parts of
the document that changed between -01 and -02, or on parts that
remained the same.
If the former, then it is fair to bring them up, *iff* your comment
is to the effect that the change doesn't match the resolution of
some specific (i.e. referenced) last call issue(s).
If the latter, then sorry, we've had last call. Everyone got their
chance to raise issues. Other cases are treated the same, unless
compelling.
Its too late here for me to check tonight, but I will tomorrow,
unless someone else on the list does that for me in the meantime
(he hinted:-)
http://www.sonic.net/~dougotis/dkim/ietf-dkim-threat-02-diff.html
In the prior message, I recalled the wrong version of the threat
draft. Sorry for the inaccurate statement regarding the extent of
the changes in two sections regarding network amplification and the
cryptographic weaknesses. The other suggestions do not attempt to
change the meaning of the draft, but were intended to improve
clarity. The existing text appears to be technically in error, where
corrections should be helpful for future work.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html