Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-threats-02 nit//[various topics]

[Douglas Otis <[e-mail]>]

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