On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 03:16:50 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----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?
I don't think the SHOULD is needed for interoperability or for security, so I think suggested is fine. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
