- From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:51:58 +0300
- To: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
- Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi guys, in the call today I had been arguing that the "data flow" is in the main part of the specification. Of course, it may not be written in a way that is easily readable for a security or a privacy expert, who may not be the subject matter expert on the specific application technology. This had been noticed in the IETF with security reviews and the IAB published a document about this topic, called "Writing Protocol Models": http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4101 Ciao Hannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJR3uKvAAoJEGhJURNOOiAtFnkH/j/4T12Y1uIiHxx/bJMEGoK/ P6uTnAO0L5ujDq4AAYEuH3VR2FdUgxRAEq152EcnZYequ0cAd6+PYXJCuyBZEQfJ Z/HN2NyTNzaR50BL4rYg8gDveVriifMUvvhgwWmtd4sgr+aswajSqhFxhI2QCVVX RULGNfuGYakacoKzxFc9V1YVT57kdOfA3J3hTVlhCNZcAEXX7VvbSxvrLj6qwFgo s0Ufgo6Jfmw07muMDoBxoUwx/BtmU7duhAS2X5cflTjNzT2rnkwmpIFDA75CDZRG QiYNFAoKROeBtb4QuR+82R8WkxMB+zkKgzQngVQdtUTuoJNDvHCmwUGKEjs6dn0= =xpg8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 16:52:32 UTC