#54: Simplify name redaction Changes (by [email protected]):
* status: new => closed * resolution: => invalid Comment: FWIW, the last line in that example should be ".top-secret.com" rather than "top-secret.com". I've discussed my comment:3 proposal with Ben and Eran. We've decided to not use it. We'll stick with the SEQUENCE OF INTEGERs extension in the current draft. So, since the idea of simplifying name redaction seems to have reached a dead end, I'm marking this ticket as INVALID. I've just created ticket #60 to salvage the idea of revealing the number of redacted labels. In a recent discussion on the list, there was clear support for this, albeit for security reasons rather than for simplification reasons. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: [email protected] | [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: invalid Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/54#comment:4> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
