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
