Pinging again on this item - is this the right forum to ask this type of question?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:20 AM Mike Vacirca <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I was curious if there was ever discussion on extending Protocol Buffers > to include coverage for redaction of a data field? > > Specifically, we are looking at the use case of a developer having a > keyword available to them that would allow data classification services, > logging services, et. al. to be able to read a particular data field as > requiring redaction due to core customer content (or other data > classification state) and filtering out the contents during > archival/transmission/etc. > > Or if this would be the wrong approach, are there areas that may be the > right technical approach to "shift left" the annotation of parameters > earlier in the cycle during coding? > > We are looking at ways to improve the current workflow in GCP which > requires us to track and annotate data between RPC services in production > using manual annotation from engineers post-development. > -- *Michael Vacirca* 718-938-9424 Senior Engineering Manager, Regulated Cloud Google Cloud -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/CAPvXYq1eGgNpf2KF%3D68wO4mLMwwRHMGe-%3DzE4fq4yCzTLOkGXA%40mail.gmail.com.
