Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Security Considerations states: Servers MAY exclude the redacted members for RDAP fields that are considered a privacy issue in providing a data existence signal. This really seems like a 5th method of Redaction that should have its own entry in Section 3. Or alternatively, should be documented in the 3.1 Section. (as in, this is not a security consideration, but an explicit feature) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Since Section 3 extensively uses terminology from Section 4, I think it makes more sense to change the order of these two sections. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
