> On 24 January 2014 18:29, Paul Lambert <p...@marvell.com> wrote: >> >> Comments on draft Public Notary Transparency: >> >> - ŒTransparent Public Notary¹ would be better for a group name >> and match the new charter more closely (versus original charter >> was making an existing service Transparent) >> >> - charter is too public key focused. A Merkle Hash Tree can support >> a notary-like facility for any information that can be hashed >> Suggest changing paragraph two to use current examples but >> add a non-public key example and down-play public keys as just an >> example >> >> - Is ŒPublic¹ necessary in the title and as a goal? >> A ŒTransparent Notary¹ could be public or private. Enterprise or >> private >> applications could readily benefit from notary functions. >> suggest removing public from title and add a sentence in scope >> describing public an private applications. > > The focus on public keys is deliberate. As the second work item says, > WG would re-charter for transparency of other things. This is because > it turns out that whilst there's clearly a general mechanism, there's > a lot of details that may change depending on what exactly is being > logged.
+1 > >> >> - word-smithing for readability would be beneficial. Especially >> the introduction to better capture the groups new focus. >> >> Paul >> >> >> _______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list therightkey@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
