On 23/Jan/12 17:59, [email protected] wrote: > Filename : draft-ietf-marf-redaction-06.txt > Date : 2012-01-23
I think that approach definitely solves the previous issue. Two points: First, step 4 of Section 2 could be merged with (or moved right after) step 1, as it involves the target set of the transformation and hence is part of it. The example that recalls SMTP requirements for local parts could be moved to Section 3 (BTW, the maximum length of 64 bytes could also be mentioned, so that both truncation and encoding become part of the transformation.) The point is that such choices logically belong to step 1, since they are not based on the output of the transformation of a given piece of private data. Second, Section 3 could mention that some transformations use a secret key and thereby recover the definition of "redaction key". All or some of the Key Management section, as well as the statement on its reasonable length, could then be recovered. jm2c _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
