# Handling confidential addresses in HSDS 3.0 **URL:** \ **Category:** Technical\ **Created:** [September 23, 2022, 6:06am UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/handling-confidential-addresses-in-hsds-3-0/243 "2022-09-23T06:06:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 27
**Author:** ![robredpath](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/forum.openreferral.org/robredpath/32/42_2.png) [@robredpath](https://forum.openreferral.org/u/robredpath)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2023, 2:57pm UTC](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/handling-confidential-addresses-in-hsds-3-0/243/27 "2023-02-13T14:57:58Z")
> [@skyleryoung](#): > > What would it look like to finish gathering consensus and resolve this topic? Heh, well. The good news is that all the solutions we’ve seriously discussed either don’t require an upgrade at all, or a MINOR one; we don’t need to tie this into the 3.0 discussion. _phew_. The bad news is that I think we’ve got a few of these kinds of things around and I think the HSDS Workgroup should really be focussing on the API spec, tooling questions and getting the upgrade out, so I don’t really want to add this - and any other such questions - into the mix. I think you can largely just go ahead and declare that this is how you are choosing to implement redaction; in time this might warrant getting written up as non-normative guidance or a profile or something like that. Or, it might be adopted as normative in 3.1 @bloom can I just check that’s your understanding as well? --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.openreferral.org/t/handling-confidential-addresses-in-hsds-3-0/243)._