On Sat Aug 13 23:44:25 2016 GMT+0200, Eran Messeri wrote: > It would help a lot if those objecting to name redaction would provide > their arguments against it (maybe as a link to another thread / document, > as to not derail this thread). > > FWIW, my intention (and, to be clear, that's just me, before consulting the > other authors of 6962-bis) is to move name redaction to a draft of its own > rather than get rid of the concept, if the decision will be to move it out > of 6962-bis. That is so we can continue discussing/refining it to suit the > threats/concerns it intends to address.
FWIW, "figure it out later" seems like entirely the right plan to me, esp if that doesn't slow down the WG. S. > > Eran > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Jeremy Rowley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I also objected to removing name redaction, but I think it was just Rich > > and > > I. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Trans [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Salz, Rich > > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:36 PM > > To: Melinda Shore <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Trans] Name redaction consensus call > > > > > Since there was no comment at all on the proposal to retain name > > > redaction, we appear to have complete agreement that it should go. > > > We'll go back into wglc when a new version is submitted. > > > > I did reply that I wanted to keep redaction, but agree that consensus is > > against it. > > > > -- > > Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies > > IM: [email protected] Twitter: RichSalz > > _______________________________________________ > > Trans mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Trans mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans > > > > > _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
