Hi, I'm Tarah, and I'm new at Symantec. I'll be reviewing and responding
to the CT redaction thread, and actively involved in proposals.
Principal Security Advocate
Senior Director of Engineering, Website Security
On 9/16/16, 4:10 PM, "Trans on behalf of Melinda Shore"
<trans-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of melinda.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>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.
Trans mailing list