On Friday, January 20, 2012 10:06:22 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----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.
If this issue, AIUI, is that someone is worried that later this will be referenced in an inappropriate way, I'm not sure what would satisfy that. I think it's already clear. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
