>I think it's better to just change "contains" to "can contain", and similarly >"includes" to "can include". The specific rules for different tokens (e.g., >local-parts vs. domain names) might be a little different. For example, base64 >won't work universally on domain names, but base32 would. So the >transformation >needs to meet certain requirements, and so does the encoding. But those two >requirement sets come from different places, so I prefer the partitioning as we >have it. > >As for the length, I think we should be more general and just say there may be >other constraints that also need to be observed in the replacement.
Sure. While you're at it there's a typo, date -> data. >> Second, Section 3 could mention that some transformations use a secret >> key and thereby recover the definition of "redaction key". All or some >> of the Key Management section, as well as the statement on its >> reasonable length, could then be recovered. > >I don't think we want to get into the mechanics of various methods at all. Please let that sleeping dog lie. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
