Dave Crocker wrote:
Are you saying that you think it is sufficient to provide a technical
basis for what is in the current specification?
No. I was asking for an example from you of what is missing or
wrong in 4868. I assume you have something in mind, since you raised
the specific issue.
I understood that you seek to throw the issue back onto me.
Well you did raise the issue, so its fair to ask.
I think
that a threats review should be performed by folks with a background in
security, such as yourself.
I take it from that that 1527 is therefore not related to a
specific perceived threat, but is rather a generic request
for additional threat analysis. I'm ok with that.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html