> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 2:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Document status(es) > > My understanding is that redaction is sometimes necessary or useful, > but even then the WG has no final solutions. We just propose an > algorithm, and thus the document is informative. If aiming at PS > implies devising a protocol for thoroughly redacting messages, I > suggest we don't.
I don't think the redaction document has any such lofty goals. It's a technique that can be applied that is both effective and useful (at least, just as effective and more useful than replacing the sensitive stuff with "xxxxxxxx"). And it's starting to see some uptake already. "Thoroughly redacting messages" seems to me to be the same thing as not sending a report at all; any complaint you make, no matter how small, could potentially reveal something. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
