Hi Dave,
At 10:51 22-01-2012, Dave CROCKER wrote:
As a matter of due diligence, I'll also ask folks whether they
believe the modifications to the specification retain its previous
level of utility and pedagogy as a specification, for strangers out
there in implementation land who lack the background from
participating in the working group? I ask this because sometimes
handling the one point raised by a Discuss alters the answer for
other aspects of the spec...
The title of the draft is "Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data
from Mail Abuse Reports". The draft is about addressing the following:
"Previous redaction practices, such as replacing local-parts of
addresses with a uniform string like "xxxxxxxx", often frustrates any
kind of prioritizing or grouping of reports."
The desired outcome is to allowing grouping of reports. What the
specifications ends up doing is trying to protect "Potentially
Sensitive Data". I found version -03 useful for strangers as it
basically recommends to use a hash/digest instead of "xxxxxxxx". The
most important point in that version was:
"it is extremely unlikely that report generation software could
ever be created to recognize all of the different ways that
private information may be expressed through human written
language"
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
