On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:55:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Thu 2016-06-16 21:48:31 -0400, Matt Palmer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:51:23AM +0000, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > >> My view as well. If it's not part of this bis, you're basically saying > >> goodbye to name redaction > > > > How so? Has the IETF said they won't accept any further RFC submissions on > > redaction (or CT in general) after the publishing of 6962-bis? > > Specifying it is the easy part. Figuring out a deployment story would > be the hard part, especially if there are browsers (or other CT clients) > in the deployed base who don't know how to deal with it.
That's the position we're in today, though, with 6962 not supporting redaction, and the single widely-deployed CT client stating they won't be recognising 6962-redacted SCTs as valid. So, whether redaction is in 6962 or not, you're still going to have all the same deployment issues (which are hardly unique to redaction; IPv6 anyone?) when redaction's kinks are worked out. - Matt _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
