Hi David,
At 12:51 11-01-2012, [email protected] wrote:
At a minimum, I like John Levine's suggestion that the draft explain
the level of security required for redaction in practice. Such an
explanation could help illuminate whether the secure hash (the
example in the draft uses SHA-1) is for obfuscation purposes
vs. actual security.
It would help to have an explanation along the line of John Levine's
suggestion.
Absent such an explanation, I saw the use of a secure hash and inferred
the existence of actual security requirements. If that was an incorrect
inference, then text should be added to the draft to avoid having
other readers make similarly incorrect inferences.
Agreed.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
