> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SM > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:56 AM > To: Pete Resnick > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Document status(es) > > Hi Pete, > At 08:09 03-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote: > >The redaction document *proposes* a *standard* way of doing redaction. > >Indeed, the document specifically says that previous practices for > >redaction cause problems operationally and therefore it *proposes* a > >better way for everyone to do it. > > Based on the above argument, draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03 fits within > "proposed standard".
Accordingly, I've posted a new version if draft-ietf-marf-redaction that seeks Standards Track status. Pete, LC at your discretion. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
