On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? I don't think the current text is very clear, so I think if we're going to not change that we should keep the text as-is while we discuss what it ought to say. -Ekr _______________________________________________ > Acme mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme >
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
