IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 11 January 2012 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD24011E80B2; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:16:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIB6udQNS7r4; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3770411E8074; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0BLGUVa005928; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326316596; i=@resistor.net; bh=2xi/6d3QoAOBAkFfR2WvFMhLgvSfgM2Yj3s0C7zLbPg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=aMCSzqf+Wj8V7ClYdw0ZjUo+bVWQTQY4Gh3whtiJf9NIOXB6T3fTyMoa9WENY6CZD uLpQ++KXLDeByzeoFN0t44yWYFSkDlEIutGUClSUxaA8qArESqoyKaIibtNRPfzUf6 SFC/cmstk/bEqYQkI/v1bGkZO1wgaMkITbCEY6WU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120111130905.0c07cff0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:15:12 -0800
To: david.black@emc.com
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7B8106C@MX14A.corp.emc. com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7B80D63@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120111112546.0c105678@resistor.net> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7B8106C@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:16:39 -0000

Hi David,
At 12:51 11-01-2012, david.black@emc.com wrote:
>At a minimum, I like John Levine's suggestion that the draft explain
>the level of security required for redaction in practice.  Such an
>explanation could help illuminate whether the secure hash (the
>example in the draft uses SHA-1) is for obfuscation purposes
>vs. actual security.

It would help to have an explanation along the line of John Levine's 
suggestion.

>Absent such an explanation, I saw the use of a secure hash and inferred
>the existence of actual security requirements.  If that was an incorrect
>inference, then text should be added to the draft to avoid having
>other readers make similarly incorrect inferences.

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email