Doug,
Douglas Otis wrote:
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
Thanks for that. Always takes me ages to find that tool for
some reason :-(
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.
Ok, so this is therefore wordsmithing in which case I guess its best
to make no change now. But if (say in response to IESG comments), we do
re-work the document, perhaps you can make your suggestions again.
I'd guess there's a fair likelihood of that, and I assume that if
this is important enough for you, you'll remember to bring it back
to the WG's attention at that point.
Cheers,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html