On 9/16/16 3:18 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > This is a fair point, and my position is that _if_ there is anyone who > will actually use redaction (i.e. clients that will support it, we > already know some CAs would like to be less transparent), then it > should be a WG doc, but I am equally OK with it being entirely > dropped, since it is not really an improvement to the ecosystem, in my > view.
I haven't discussed this with Paul but my feeling right now is that I'm happy to make adoption contingent on 1) someone stating that they will definitely be using it, and 2) one of those persons who will definitely be using it being willing to step up as co-author. There's no point to standardizing technology that's not actually useful, and failing to adopt the draft now does not close off the possibility of publishing a redaction document in the future. We've got another week - let's see if someone steps up, and in the meantime Paul and I will talk. Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list Trans@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
