[ietf-dkim] Re: wg formation status?

[Jim Fenton]

Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
>> What is still pending on the document?
>
>
> I guess there were at least a number of minor to middling
> issues raised on the list and in Vancouver. Things like
> having an abstract description of the signing process etc.
>
>> In the Threat Analysis discussions I have been struck by the 
>> difference in clarity and apparent consensus on the issues that 
>> pertain to the core functions, versus those that pertain to the 
>> "policy" functions.
>
> [...]
>
>> All of this suggests that de-coupling the TA for the core 
>> functionality, from that of the policy-related enhancements, will be 
>> necessary if we are to stay on schedule.
>
>
> I think that that may turn out to be the case, but I'd rather
> see the next revision and work from there.

My inclination is to include the policy pieces in the TA.  If they turn 
out to be a major obstacle, then we can decide what to do about that but 
we'll need a threat analysis of them at some point and I'd rather not 
start out planning to break this into two documents.

-Jim