On 27/01/15 10:51, Rob Stradling wrote:
On 21/01/15 18:49, Stephen Kent wrote:
Rob,
Hi Steve.
That seems like a good idea. Did you have any particular DNS experts
in mind?
I'd ask Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> for suggestions.
Thanks. I'll contact Joel.
Actually, before I do that...
We've already thought of two possible ways to express redacted label(s)
in a Precertificate:
1. "(PRIVATE)." matching >=1 redacted labels.
2. "?." matching =1 redacted label.
But it occurs to me that there's a third option:
3. "" matching >=0 redacted labels.
Option 3 would hide the fact that redaction is even occurring. We
wouldn't need to use "(PRIVATE)" or "?" or seek any alternative
redaction label proposals from the DNS experts. :-)
Would folks be happy with option 3?
--
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
