On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <j...@eff.org> wrote:
> 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? > This still just seems confusing, especially with the MUST. Without worrying about text, what behavior are you attempting to require the client to engage in? -Ekr > _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > Acme@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
