Michael Thomas wrote:
This thread began as a complaint against a particular requirement
being imposed on a particular pre-working group effort.
No it did not. Stop imputing my motives.
Michael,
I readily admit to having no clue as to what your motives are. I can't
guess... and I haven't tried.
What I DID do was to characterize the semantics of the original posting that
you sent, creating this thread:
Michael Thomas wrote:
> Having a "threat analysis" was brought up at the plenary by Steve
> Bellovin as being a Good Thing(tm). At the MASS/DKIM BOF we are
> being required to produce such a thing as a prerequisite to even
> getting chartered as a working group. The problem that I have (and
> Dave Crocker at the plenary) is that there doesn't seem to be
> any definition of what a "threat analysis" is.
Whatever your intent, the text you sent complains that the DKIM effort was
given a requirement but was not given guidance, notably that we were not given
a definition of the term that describes the requirement.
Yet you were present at the lunch where our area director gave us both the
requirement and the definition.
That some of us understood what he said and some of us did not is certainly
important, of course. It probably at least means we need more/better guidance.
But it does not change the fact that we were given explicit guidance and a
definition to back it up.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf