> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:38 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04 > > > John and I collaborated on the following edits. Please indicate > > whether or not you approve, and suggest any adjustments needed. I'll > > include them in a revision right after IETF LC closes. > > > > http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf.html > > Looks good to me.
Thanks for that. Just to make sure our bases are all covered, the Gen-ART reviewer is pushing a little on the idea of saying the use of a secure hash ought to be a SHOULD, while we're currently using "suggested" given the non-critical use of security here. So just to get it on the record, do we prefer the "suggested" language, or is a SHOULD more appropriate? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
