On 02.01.2012 07:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > >> 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.
Indeed, it doesn't even say in what cases redaction is applicable. It only recalls that Precisely how this is done is unspecified in [ARF] as it will generally be a matter of local policy. That specification does admonish generators against being too over-zealous with this practice, as obscuring too much data makes the report non-actionable. The second sentence seems to be construed for an Informational doc that talks about a Standard. Should it be amended if changing status to PS? Or maybe the document should state that it specifies the algorithm only, so that it is clear that no other goals are intended. I see no other corners that may deserve attention when turning to PS. BTW, s/identity of then end user/identity of the end user/. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
