----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can someone clarify how this is within scope for the > current deliverable? Hmmmmm, Dave, as requested by Jim and Stephen, I racked my brains trying to mold this NEW ISSUE entry in the best possible manner that would cater to the mindset of this mixed discipline group, sensitive of the WG schedule and to minimize changes to Jim's fine TA document. I thought I provided a compromise that addresses a very important fundamental threat related to the SSP specification and ignored in the TA. It is 100% related to the TA. Many the current TA threats impact or likelihood are affected by the issues presented by me. But I didn't present it that way. I present it as an additional item to add. As a side related note, the SSP draft specification as it is currently defined is implemented in the current common API being made available for developers. I don't think to say much about the premature nature of the decisive (low info, few options) design decisions made. Nonetheless, I believe this should be added to the TA to serve as a basis for the next round of signature and SSP design discussions. The fact is, these are real threats and they need to be documented in the TA, so I did the best I could to present it in a simple logical manner, as requested by Jim and Stephen, so that it can easily be considered. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org