Re: evaluation: draft-vaudreuil-mdnbis

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <p06001a00bb66bdc571b3@[129.46.227.161]>, hardie@qualcomm.com writes
:
>Steve,
>	Going through the comment reproduced below (which
>is attached to the ballot with Ned's replies), it looks like Ned
>concurred with you on adding text for privacy considerations in
>general and on adding some text describing the risk with
>source-routed address matching issues. This general text does
>seem to be present in Section 6.2, along with a description of how a
>source-routed address might be used in an attack using a spurious
>disposition-notification-to added to the envelope.
>	As you know, Ned is actually the shepherding AD on this;
>I brought it forward in his absence after a request by Greg.  If this
>does not handle your issue, can you suggest specific text, and
>cc: Greg, so that he can respond?

I think I see what happened.  I was using wdiff, and -- as is often the 
case -- I had to guess at what the previous version was.  draft-tracker 
showed that it changed to AD Evaluation on 5 June, which was after the 
date of -04; I thus assumed that my thorough read-through had been -04. 
Scanning my mail archives, I see that the state change was very long 
after the call and the discussion, which means that my comments had 
been on -03.  

I'll check things again.  And I'd *really* like it if there was some 
indication in the agenda or in the ballot file or somewhere exactly 
when the previous evaluation was, or on what version of the document it 
was.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb