*From: *Zellyn Hunter
*Date: *Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM
*To: *Adam Cozzette
*Cc: *Josh Humphries, Protocol Buffers
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:06 PM Adam Cozzette wrote:
>
>> I asked for feedback about this proposal within Google and unfortunately
>> it sounds like there's not a lot of support
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:06 PM Adam Cozzette wrote:
> I asked for feedback about this proposal within Google and unfortunately
> it sounds like there's not a lot of support for accepting this kind of
> change. The general feedback I got was that it's best to simply avoid
> printing out any
I asked for feedback about this proposal within Google and unfortunately it
sounds like there's not a lot of support for accepting this kind of change.
The general feedback I got was that it's best to simply avoid printing out
any protos at all if they might contain sensitive information. This
Let me bring this up again with the rest of the protobuf team and see if
there is a consensus on this.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:01 AM Zellyn Hunter wrote:
> Hey there, just checking in from Paternity Leave. Last I heard, the
> Protobuf team was not opposed to the idea, but thought it would be
Hey there, just checking in from Paternity Leave. Last I heard, the
Protobuf team was not opposed to the idea, but thought it would be
relatively invasive and thus unlikely to get accepted. I believe that it
will hardly be invasive at all, so I think the most-likely-to-succeed
course of action is
I don't think there has been any movement on this, but I'd like to ping the
thread again.
I am still a strong proponent of standard metadata in the proto source and
descriptor to indicate sensitive things. I also think it's a truly wise
idea to use that information to trigger auto-redaction of
Apologies for the long delay, but I got radically reassigned at work, so I
haven't had much time to work on this. But it keeps niggling at me, because
I hate our internal protobuf forks so much.
Here is the proposal: Proto Proposal: a “sensitive” field option
Hi Zellyn, this sounds like a reasonable idea. As the next step could you
perhaps write up a short proposal with more details on what exactly it
would mean for a field to be redacted? To me it seems like the important
thing would be to make sure it's clear how redacted fields are supposed to
be
