Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi Eric, Jim, > > There're a couple of cases here where Eric is more-or-less > saying "not convinced" or that the document needs to also > mention something not currently covered. Eric - if you and > Jim could work out new text for those cases offline during > the week, that'd really help us finish this document. So > can you guys try to get together sometime to do that during > the week? We can do it on the list, but that'll take longer > and is more likely to generate a flood of messages (will > the flood metaphor be common this week I wonder:-) Sounds good to me. I'll work on revising the text (Eric, thanks for your followup comments) but I would appreciate some suggested text on the timing attacks. I'm less likely to get that right without several iterations.
Eric, I'm happy to get together if you have some time this week. I'll be here all week (leaving Friday afternoon). I'll let you suggest a time. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
