-0 for adoption. I'm ambivalent about seeing redaction supported in CT. I've worked on redaction in the past only because I wanted to see CT succeed and redaction seemed like a necessary prerequisite (to having browsers require CT for all TLS certs).
Given that Chrome now requires CT - with redaction not permitted - for all Symantec TLS certs, ISTM that redaction is not a necessary prerequisite after all. Therefore, my interest has waned. If the WG adopts, we *really* needs folks who have a strong interest in seeing redaction supported in CT to drive further work on this draft. On 09/09/16 21:24, Melinda Shore wrote: > Hi, all: > > As you may have noticed, text related to name redaction > has been excised from 6962-bis. Because there's interest > in support for redaction that text has been spun off into > a separate document (draft-strad-trans-redaction-00, > "Certificate Transparency: Domain Label Redaction"), and > this is a call for adoption of that draft as a working group > deliverable, for publication as (tentatively) an experimental > RFC. If you've read the document, please let us know whether > or not you feel it's suitable for adoption, and if it's > a topic on which you've got particular interest, please > be prepared to contribute text :-). > > The call for adoption closes in two weeks, at 23:59 UTC on > 23 September 2016. > > Thanks, > > Melinda & Paul -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list Trans@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
