> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 9:54 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: Message Abuse Report Format working group > Subject: Re: [marf] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04 > > I think the way forward is to explain why we don't need cryptographic > security here, and why the specific hash function chosen doesn't > matter, as long as the redacted value stays the same for the same > unredacted input. And that's all.
What do you think might be missing from the current Security Considerations to nail this point home to the IESG's satisfaction? Basically, I thought we'd done this already in -05. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
