I could provide a summary of each proposal, but I'm probably not the best person to discuss the technical pros and cos of each proposal. I'd like time to discuss it on the agenda.
-----Original Message----- From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:33 PM To: Jeremy Rowley <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Paul Wouters <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Trans] Draft agenda On 3/9/17 1:20 PM, Jeremy Rowley wrote: > I don't think there's weak interest in redaction. I think most people > are stumped on how to move forward. Given the discussions on the > Google CT policy list and CAB Form (and the current Symantec practice > of redacting SAN information), it's a huge topic. The question is how > do we progress towards consensus when there are such polar view points. Fair enough. One problem has been that the proposals have been fairly unstable, in the sense that they change/develop fairly rapidly. One thing that would be helpful would be a summary of each proposal, with technical tradeoffs, that might be useful as a basis for discussion. Also, if someone else wants time on the agenda on this topic they should let us know. Melinda
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
