> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction > > >>> Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are > >>> already included in > > Wouldn't it be odd to consider that text after WGLC?
I don't understand that question. Your comment was made before or during WGLC, so it's considered for the revision. I explicitly included it by saying so. > The spec says "such as" local-parts of email addresses, in > parentheses. It is a way to indicate by example --apparently better > than the "atomistic" wordings we tried. > > Some full examples of redacted messages would better the I-D. Fair enough. > > (And if one is redacting local-parts but not email addresses, I > > have to wonder "why"...) > > Since it is not PII, it can be safely left in place. (Please note > that "safely" addresses legal concerns, not security.) Having domain > names is often necessary to process messages properly. Hence, leaving > them alone allows treatment even without full un-redacting > capabilities, which is consistent with the claim that ARF messages are > also human-readable. If you're doing any redacting at all using the proposed method, you're already replacing some part of the message (arguably the most interesting part) with a string of what a user will see as gibberish. I don't see how doing it twice makes it any less human-readable than it already is. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
