On 08/17/2016 10:11 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Can you tell me more about what you find confusing? Is it just the MUST? > > The whole text. > If so, I'm happy to change it to a SHOULD, with the understanding that > the server is likely to reject such requests. > > > Again, I'd like to step back from the text a bit. It's not a matter of > MUST versus SHOULD > but about what behavior on the part of the client would be needed to be > compliant. For > instance, can it send this PDU without ever prompting the user for consent.
Can you propose an alternate text? My intent is not to alter the current state of things with regards to user consent, but merely to simplify the protocol. What is the text that, for you, would indicate the exact same things about user consent as the current draft? _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
