> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction > > Actually, I meant > > "redacted-encoding1" "@" "redacted-encoding2" "." "redacted-encoding3"
So now we have to say which atoms get encoded and which don't. It's getting pretty complicated. > [...] > Thus "<[email protected]>" becomes "<[email protected]>" if the encoded hash is ABCD..., > but easiness is lost. Definitely. We also have to consider that user full-names might need redaction. "Murray S. Kucherawy" is six atoms, for example, and we'd have to specify rules there too. I think this way lies madness. As long as the redaction procedure is applied consistently, both sides get what they want. I think that's as far as we should go. Are there any other points to cover here, or is a WGLC in order? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
