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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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