At 08:43 08-03-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
This is a clear and supportable stance. And as Ned notes, a short
Security section that is valid should be defended.
I'm entirely comfortable with my name on this document, with that position.
Personally, I also consider it is a clear and supportable stance.
I'll note that confusion about the exposure this option does /not/
create seems to be pretty easy to suffer. Defending against /that/
problem is probably worth a small amount of extra text.
[snip]
Got some support.
I agree. BTW, I used the text you provided.
And I have developed and even greater concern for the thinking that
this type of binary mechanism causes a malware window. I think we
now have affirmative proof that the confusion is common.
That's fine as long as we do not have to address any confusion that
does not contribute to the clarity of specification in a substantive way.
So, I'll suggest that we use Ned's text:
I also used that text.
I'll post the WG response shortly.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
