On 08/16/2016 06:38 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > This text seems like an attempt to triangulate between what's the > protocol and some notion of user consent (which wasn't really present > in the original version). If I were to implement this code, I might > well just do:
Are you talking about "client indicates its agreement" vs "client indicates its operator's agreement?" I wasn't trying to change the meaning here, just fixing what looked like a grammar semantics error. But I'm not attached to the fix. I just pushed a change back to: > If the server provides a terms-of-service URL in the directory, the client MUST > indicate its agreement to the terms at that URL by including the Look good now? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
