<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Comic Sans MS; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Bob,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't necessarily disagree with you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What would make me happy?</DIV>
<DIV>I suppose the insistence that the phishing related document be appropriately referenced and appropriately positioned in the 2.0 spec AND</DIV>
<DIV>the phishing "appendix" be released at the same time as the 2.0 spec. - I.e. the 2.0 spec should not be released without the appendix document.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>=gavin.baumanis</DIV>
<DIV><BR>>>> On Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 11:05, in message <45be5cd40701191605h6589feccga41f5033b765ff10@mail.gmail.com>, "Bob Wyman" <bob@wyman.us> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="PADDING-LEFT: 7px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 15px; BORDER-LEFT: #050505 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f3f3f3">On 1/19/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Gavin Baumanis</B> <<A href="mailto:gavin.baumanis@rmit.edu.au">gavin.baumanis@rmit.edu.au</A>> wrote:
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>
<DIV>> I think not addressing [Phishing] in the spec ... is not a wise decision... <BR><BR>I keep gettting the sense that somehow people seem to think that "not addressing phishing in the spec" is the same as "not addressing phishing." But, phishing can certainly be addressed in a distinct document and the two documents can then be linked together. By having two related documents, we can "address phishing" without addressing it in the spec. Actually, I think doing it that way would make a great deal of sense -- It's a standard separation of concerns. <BR><BR>bob wyman<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>